rich_is_bored

I was listening to this radio show the other day where this guy was explaining the probability of things happening by chance. His example went something like this... We know that everything in this world is constructed of some form of fundamental building block. Pretend for a moment that you have a fish bowl and you fill it with an assortment of colored marbles where each color represents a unique building block. Now, from this point forward you take out marbles and assemble them into groups at random. When you run out of marbles you've determined one possible arrangement so you put them all back into the bowl and repeat. Given an infinite amount of time it's inevitable that you would come up with the same arrangement more than once and furthermore that you'd come up with a series of arrangements in the same order numerous times. The argument being that if time has no beginning or end, then the very world we live in, the arrangement of everything has happened before and it will happen again. I'm not sure where I stand on that one. It implies that there is no such thing as free will. At the same time, it's a very interesting concept. It's to say that this very moment has happened before. I've typed this response infinite times. Maybe that's what deja vu is?

Polarization is exactly what this discussion needs. If we all seen things from similar perspectives there would be no argument. Why not? Are there not knives specifically designed for the purpose of killing people? I can. You won't find vials of smallpox, nuclear arms, tanks, or anything of that sort sold in public. But that doesn't mean you can't obtain them through legal channels. You just need the proper credentials and you may need to disclose your intent. What if gun manufacturers had to follow the same criteria? What if they were held responsible for ensuring their clients weren't a liability? What if guns weren't sold at Wal-Mart? All of a sudden, it's not illegal to own an assault rifle. It's just illegal to own one without meeting specific criteria. In much the same way that it's illegal to drive a car without a license.

This is exactly the sort of thing that freaks me out about this country. Who wants to try upping the ante and making a map of the White House?

It's great to know there are sound minds among us who are of such rational moral conviction that they can be entrusted with the authority to grant or deny us access to any and everything based on the capacity of the said object to cause harm. We need laws like that in place to protect us from ourselves. After all, we're just too stupid to be trusted around certain things. I'm glad all those smart rational thinkers are in government. *Looks towards Bush* Great. Now that this gun issue is out of the way let's rally around getting rid of sharp corners, uncovered electrical outlets, stairs, long cords, plastic bags, and all things small enough to swallow. What? I assure you this is no laughing matter gentlemen. I've got the statistics to prove that these things can be fatal. You laugh now but just wait. In 30 years when your wife dies courtesy of a stray lego brick that somehow found it's way into her soup you'll take this issue seriously.

It's not about having guns so we can protect ourselves. I mean honestly, I don't even own a gun. I personally don't see what practical use there is in having one. But I don't think it's a function of government to dictate what you can and can't spend your money on. If someone wants a gun, they should be permitted to have it. It's the actions that person takes with the gun that should be judged and penalized. I mean if I go out and by a gun tomorrow and I never use it, am I hurting anyone? Sure, I'll acknowledge a ban for what positive effects it has. Gun related deaths do go down. You have the statistics to back that up. But when you stop comparing numbers and think about the big picture, the drama caused by guns just spills out into other areas. For instance, the average joe who falls behind on his bills decides to off himself instead of robbing a convenience store. Is that a better scenario than him killing a clerk? Yeah, I suppose killing yourself is better than killing an innocent person but the force that drives him exists in both cases. I dunno. I guess my aspirations are too ambitious. I don't think people are born with this innate desire to commit horrible acts. They force themselves to do these things because they are too ignorant to resolve their problems. And through repetitive action they become conditioned to feel nothing or even take pleasure in it. But it's beyond our scope to address that so we end up settling with the lesser of two evils, like banning guns. It's another example of making the world "stupid-proof". Does anyone else find that depressing? It's like the human race is destined to fail because all the dumb asses on this planet are breeding faster than everyone else.

It's a fact that in Europe the banning of guns is working well. Better? No. Of course not. You want me to assume that if it works in your neck of the woods that it will work here. But the truth of the matter is that it isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Don't you mean compare your experience to that of one person from Philly? I mean I qualify as a random person from the US and my firsthand experience isn't any different from yours. That's how you see my argument. IMHO it's more like, "ban guns so that law abiding people don't have access to them while criminals are unaffected." Here in the US, a guy who's been convicted of a crime can't obtain a gun through legal channels anyway so it's no more difficult for him with a ban than it is without one. So unless your goal is to stop people who aren't a threat or haven't yet proven themselves to be a threat, it accomplishes nothing. You know what would sell me on a gun ban? I want to know why it works. Why don't criminals in Europe use guns? Or do they use guns and we just haven't addressed that yet? Is there no black market? Is it harder for weapons to cross borders because most countries in the region have gun bans in place? Wouldn't that mean a gun ban here in the US would only be effective if Canada and Mexico followed suit?

It's a shame we live in different time zones. I would have liked an opportunity to clear up my "Google and a trip to the supermarket" comment before there were a dozen responses to it. What I meant was that a bomb would be easier to obtain than a gun had a gun ban been in place. And contrary to what everyone seems to think, a bomb is easy to make. You can make an effective one with nothing more than a lead pipe, black powder, steel wool and a 9 volt battery. I know. Someone is going to say something about black powder. And I'd love to chime in with some ingenious alternative but honestly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not an authority on bomb making or chemistry and I'm not claiming to be. I just know it's narrow-minded to assume it's difficult to make a bomb from scratch and therefore the notion should be discounted entirely. @ Oddity: I also think its unfair to assume that since I don't agree with you that it's because I've been drinking the kool-aid. You could also assume that I voted for Bush, I think it's the end of days, I love Nascar and that I think the surge in Iraq is working. Hooray for stereotypes. Is it safe to assume that you're a rambling drunk because you're Irish? I've already said that I'm not entirely opposed to gun laws. I just don't think it's the ideal solution and that we should be making an effort to find alternative ways to curb violence in general.

So it's better to settle for the easy way out and follow suit? Heh. Watch this topic come full circle. Isn't evolution about trying new things? Isn't that how things advance?

Does it? I'd think that Google and a trip to the supermarket would be enough. What better place than a school where you can count on people gathering in large concentrations at specific times? Who cares if you can only use at the very least one bomb. If you do it right you can take out everyone in the room. Forget the fact that VT was a college where class sizes are generally larger. You could take out at least 30 people in the average high school class. That's almost the same number of people this guy Cho fella killed with all his guns and with a bomb there would have been no chance for police to respond. Exactly what I was thinking. Only I don't believe we should be starting with weapons bans. There are other things we could address that may have the same impact at reducing violent crime. Poverty for one but I'm sure I could come up with others. I fail to see how allowing people to have guns is stupidity exemplified. It's a question of responsibility. You can't allow the actions of a few dumbasses to dictate what you allow or disallow when plenty of other people demonstrate otherwise. Say we did ban guns and it had a positive impact. By banning guns you are saying that people cannot be trusted with them because they have the capacity to kill. What action can you possibly take from that point to further curb violence without redrawing that line? Knives? Perhaps then clubs? Where does it stop? I mean it sounds great except they already screen for this sort of thing at the airport now. Did you know finger nail clippers are one of the things they confiscate? It's laughable. True. I'll give you that.

I wonder how many of you have ever fired, or even less seen a gun firsthand? I have. And while it's nothing to brag about it's probably an experience that most of you will never have. But I can appreciate the strict gun laws in Europe. It's an effective solution to the problem of gun violence. And contrary to what you might think, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a gun ban here in the US but none the less I am opposed to it and I'll explain why. I don't believe by banning guns, you solve the problem. Take for instance the recent shootings at VT. Yes, if a gun ban was in place the likelihood of something of that nature happening would probably go down. However, the bullets didn't fire themselves. My point being that a person did this. Guns were just his weapon of choice. He could have easily done the same if not worse with a homemade bomb. And given the choice I'd rather see crazy people resort to guns than blowing things up. And in that the truth is by banning guns, gun violence decreases, but not violence in general. So while we can sit here and talk about reducing the number of gun related deaths and use extreme cases like gun wielding maniacs as poster boys it doesn't change the fact that there are people willing to kill and that guns are just a medium for them to act it out. I recall hearing a story about how a fella in New York was shot and killed over his sneakers. Outrageous isn't it? To equate a person's life with a pair of Nike's. But if they didn't have access to guns would that have changed the outcome? Would the thieves resorted to other weapons? Perhaps they would have stabbed him to death instead? Again there is the possibility that they might have beat him unconscious with a rock. But who's the authority on the subject right? See you have to acknowledge that with each act of violence there is some form of catalyst. People don't generally do things like murder other people without some motive for doing so. So while we can abolish guns we're not really addressing the issues that drive people to commit these horrible acts in the first place. What exactly should we do? I can't really say. But I'm sure there are actions we can take to better prevent violent crime without resorting to banning firearms. For all the nut jobs out there I'm sure there are hundreds of others who are perfectly capable of being responsible. As far as hunting is concerned. I'm not an advocate but I'm not one to encroach on someone's lifestyle. I mean, I can't speak for them but I do know that it is common practice to eat what you kill. Perhaps that isn't applicable 100% across the board but most things rarely are. Besides, it's kind of hard to stick up for animals in one specific instance while you exploit them in every other sense. I'm sure there are products you use everyday that are only possible through the death or exploitation of some animal. Has anyone else here seen what they do to cattle in slaughter houses? Just because we eat the beef doesn't make the act any less cruel.

Wow. I am awestruck. I mean, I've done some tinkering with material shaders before but I never imagined you could pull something like this off. Hell, a commercial developer would turn to a fragment program before they thought something like this up. Ingenious.

I played a couple rounds of this game the other night. I don't need to dwell on what it's like to play as a human. If you've played pretty much any multiplayer first person shooter, you already know. You have guns. You run around and shoot the opposing team. It feels very much like Quake 3 with the exception that you purchase equipment and resupply from a central point. The aliens are where things differentiate themselves from a traditional first person shooter. But aside from the wall walking abilities that some of the various classes have, they all primarily use melee attacks. I was a little dissapointed with that because you don't have any real control over the attack other than to say "hit the guy in front of you". Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who really enjoyed playing Rune. I suppose it's too early to judge but so far I don't really care for the game. Maybe it's just because I kept getting my ass handed to me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what the problem was because when you look at the scoreboard and see how many kills some of these guys are racking up, there must be some aspect of the game that I haven't quite grasped yet. Thus, I can't really enjoy myself because I don't really know what I'm doing. At any rate, I played as the engineer class for both sides for a bit and I can say without hesitation that the aliens have lousy base defenses. They're defensive turret is this tube that spews acid within a certain radius. And supposedly it can be built on walls and ceilings but from what I've seen it just doesn't seem very effective. People can run right by it. They take a bit of damage but keep on truckin like nothing happened. Now after the collective team reaches a certain number of kills, new classes and structures become available. This helps the alien team a bit as they can build these structures called trappers that will freeze humans for a specified time limit. This used in conjunction with the acid tubes is effective. However the problem is that the humans can build effective base defenses at the start while the aliens are kinda screwed until they level up. Also, the aliens' base assault class is this tiny rat sized thing that can climb walls. The strange thing is that it doesn't make use of an attack button. You simply run into your opponents and it deals damage. I think I need to emphasize that you have to hit them head on for any damage to be dealt. I just found it kind of quirky. I've also read that the game supposedly makes use of localized damage zones. Just to clarify I mean that if you hit a guy in the head it deals more damage than if you were to hit them in the leg. I wasn't seeing any proof of that during the short time I played but I assume it's there. Anyway, I've rambled on enough. If anyone manages to get the hang of it and would like to share I'd be willing to give it another go.

I was the one originally approached to write this book. But I figured the topic was too broad in general for one person to cover and I didn't want to half-ass it just to meet a deadline. Myself and a few folks at D3W discussed working together on it but the "for Dummies" folks never got back to us. From what I gather the book is focused strictly on mapping rather than modding in general. I can't say I'm surprised that it turned out that way.