Search the Community

Exactly. And I'm still of this opinion for a simple reason. Your brain automatically compensates for such movements, so you don't really notice it. However I DO notice it when the screen moves up and down in an FPS game, because the camera is not attached to my brain in the same way. I don't enjoy it because I never liked it when controls were starting to get messed up because someone though this to be "realistic". I think your statement is quite ignorant though, because "realism" is quite overrated in many situations. Not everything that would be realistic would also make a good game.

Well that's disappointing. I guess I'm about done with this go-between. It appears that you're unable to address the points at hand (there are many to choose from, from items listed on a website to personal opinions about them), and instead continue to go down to the personal insult level without reason. And, you play dumb about any kind of anger, yet you continue to use the same hostile tactics. You seem to infer all knowledge of what a person is thinking, and then argue it with them. I'll move along past it I guess - you're really not worth the effort at all. -You haven't indicated where the 'slim veneer' data is. You may have thought I was being sarcastic, but I was sincere about it. -You haven't demonstrated how a building owner admitting he pulled a building down isn't fact. -You haven't demonstrated how a news source admitting they goofed isn't fact. Where you go with that is up to you, but you seem to be avoiding those points entirely, instead choosing to misquote only the limited context you care to address, spraying the conspiracy word around where it doesn't belong, and calling people stupid. Anyway, don't answer for my sake, I don't really care.

Because you don't say 'this is stupid'; you say 'you are stupid.' Or that someone has 'brain wires missing.' Or is 'lower than you.' You see, while everyone else in the thread is able to conduct themselves in a normal social manner, simply posting what they feel in an impersonal way, you lash out with insults for some unknown reason. It makes me curious as to why, as I indicated above (probably a defensiveness for reporters is bringing it to the surface), but not curious enough to bother finding out. Nevermind about the 'slim veneer'; that I am also curious about, but maybe I'll try to find it on my own.

Well, the whole reason Tolkien wrote the LOTR was to provide a history for his fictional languages to develop in.

Wow! Did you get angry at me for asking about the "slim veneer?" It was just a question, and a legitimate one at that. If that was shown around, readers could surely re-evaluate the scenario portrayed here. Also, I think you're having trouble comprehending the difference between reading a site, and writing a site. Odd, considering your supposed background. You see, I read it and found it interesting, little more. From your vehemence, I'm guessing you think I wrote it. No, no. And apparently you didn't read it, or you might see some possible answers to your questions above. I think you're taking this far too close to heart for some reason, as if you were a BBC reporter or nephew of the building owner. I suggest stepping back and relaxing a bit, gaining a new perspective on the thread and website, and not letting it get you unwound. If that fails, just get drunk like you apparently always do; that should do the trick! Sorry if I sound condescending, but if you feel such a need to get personal about it, you'll have to do better than that.

A real effort to thwart terrorism would involve addressing the problems that give rise to terrorism. Imagine if we had gone into Iraq and started building hospitals and schools, like we said we were. Imagine if the US used its incredible wealth and military power to actually assist needy nations with honest, healthy development instead of rape and rapine. Poverty and desperation breed terrorism, but rather than attacking those evils we would rather live in a state of semi-terror, waiting for the next attack that is sure to come largely due in part to our own actions. And the war in terror is a bullshit scam anyway. The war on terror is about handing sweetheart contracts out to US corporations, about consolidating control of the police state thats forming here, and about removing obstacles put in place to check the power of the State, little else. The ruling elites would love another 911 style attack, something to whip up more fear in the mooks, they keep trying to find one but the truth is there hasn't been a lot of terrorist activity here since 911. And do not dismiss the "slippery slope" phenomenon, its at work here as well. It started out as secret detentions for foreigners, now we have US citizens being secretly detained. It started out as foreigners being declared "enemy combatants" by the President and therefore having no legal recourse in the courts, the pressure is to apply this to US citizens as well. Police groups in the US are using the W o T as a reason for spying on peaceful anti-war groups, environmental groups, and others, this is un Constitutional BTW.

Fair enough. When you have daily acts of terrorism committed then "extreme" measures probably are necessary, but our single terrorist act killing around 50 people is hardly at that level and does not justify the amount of hysteria in the government and media. Of course they are minor, but they are also useless and stupid. If the government want to reduce the terrorist threat, how about not invading other countries for no reason and sucking up to America 24/7? So far I don't think there have been any terrorist attacks on countries that do not blindly support the US, so clearly this would be a much more effective strategy. No, I'm saying that the "only criminals have something to fear from these powers" argument is ridiculous because the same entity is responsible for both defining and punishing criminality, therefore allowing them to use their powers against anybody they wish. Whether the government actually do this is irrelevant to the argument's invalidity.

Reason four thousand and fifty five to move to Canada and away from this batshit nightmare of a country. But I'm in agreement with future-oDDity, religion has a lot to do with it, IMHO. Its religious thinking that feeds into American exceptionalism, the ideology of national uniqueness that helps keep a significant portion of the population firmly behind imperial adventures, even when it has direct negative impacts on their own lives. Thats why they send their sons and daughters to die, many believe its a divine perogative of this nation to be a "beacon unto the world, a city upon the hill." to paraphrase Cotton Mather, IIRC. Religious superstition and nationalistic hubris blend into a toxic mix of entitlement and avarice here. A good show to that effect: http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20070221-Wed1200.mp3

As long as we're describing our own fantasy histories, I think I'll describe mine: (note that this is NOT official TDM history, just my own crazed ramblings) What if long ago, The City was part of a larger continent-wide empire... Probably as a southern trade-port city at the very edge of the empire. Then during the alignment of planets or some such, a doomsday cult succeeded in performing some sort of catastrophic ritual. Plagues spread throughout the land, the dead rose to unlife and even darker, more powerful abominations came to inhabit the wilderness between towns and cities. Armies were overwhelmed, farms were left unprotected, famine struck and the empire collapsed. However, the epicenter for all this was at the heart of the empire, and the larger cities at the very fringes were just barely successful in keeping control over their own lands. Fast forward a millennium, and The City is "flourishing" (well, ignoring the prevalence of abject poverty )... It's sprawling with new smoke stacks popping up everywhere, and little organized resistance to the Builders exists within the bounds of the city. There's plenty of high-class merchants and banks and museums and such. Outside the city is far more wild and unsafe due to pagans, but they also keep the nearby forests clear of any undead, inadvertently shielding the city from the full impact of the horrors that lurk to the north. To the distant north lie numerous ruins, still filled with untold riches and lost knowledge, for the dead roam the wilderness and the area is too treacherous for most treasure hunters... not that they don't try. Locally, in The City, the land is still "tainted" so the dead often reanimate, but people have built countermeasures... Cemetery gates aren't for decoration, and sarcophagi have heavy stone lids for a reason. Except during plagues, the city is under control. What does this mean in terms of what the player experiences? In old books there might be occasional vague references to the Old Kingdom or the Great Catastrophy or some such. But more usually it could provide an easy excuse to have as many tomb-exploring maps as mansion robbing ones, and it allows any random cave or catacombs to be haunted, should the mapper choose that. Perhaps there could even be a campaign about another doomsday ritual on the millennial anniversary of the catastrophy.

Its not a good reason. Some people may benefit but others, including myself, suffer when such reasoning or lack thereof is used to make decisions that effect others. If people could quarantine it to the Great Beyond, I'd be slightly less antagonistic towards such thinking, but the truth is no one does. And why does trying to convince people that my way of thinking is best make me nuts? I use reasoned arguments, I demand evidence, and I try to critically examine the way I think. I have a standard in place, as imperfect as it may be. My way of thinking is rigorous, or at least it tries to be. I can produce new knowledge with my methods, I can explain how some things work and even why we may never completely know how other things work. You cannot honestly compare the two ways of thinking, they are diametrically opposed. One demands a process with standards, filters, for trying to flesh out the truth. The other simply begins with the assumption that what is believed is true, as if this were enough. In the final analysis, its a matter of believing what you want to believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary or an utter lack of evidence, as in the case for an afterlife. It gives us no new useful information, it only tells us what we were told or hoped for, is. This kind of thinking has corrolaries in political thought and I think the two feed into one another. I got in an argument with a guy at my pub about five months back. He was saying to me "I know there are all these scandals going on in the White House and Congress. I know there are all of these huge questions about the truth of the reasons for going into Iraq. I know there are no connections between Al Quaida and Saddam despite being told so by the media and politicians for the last two years." **BUT** "Don't you think that the people in power, the President and his team, our Congressmen and women, don't you really think in the bottom of your heart that they are good people, trying to do a good job?" His faith in the system was being challenged by reality, and like any Bleever, he ran to his mental tortoise shell for comfort. I whipped him with scorn for about an hour, at one point I told him I would bring in a dozen books to argue against what he believed. He snapped at me " I don't care about books, I mean, don't you just feel that they are good people?" You should have seen the anguish in his face as he desperately clung to his fantasy image about the Good Ole US of A and its brave leadership. He has never spoke with me again, I assure you his ears are still ringing with the drive-by rhetorical ass whipping I hit him with. Dom, there is no difference between this and the beliefs you are describing. To misquote Wittengenstein and take him out of context a bit I think too, for that which we have no knowledge, we must pass over silence. That means we can make NO claims about an afterlife that are of any value, other than to anesthesize our minds to our mortality, and the truly precious time we have here as living thinking beings. Hehe, yes I guess I did.

It depends if you have a Node or an Instance. If you have an Instance, you can call path().parent() to get the parent entity. There is code for this in the Entity Inspector so when you select a brush, it will display the keyvalues on the parent entity. The reason I suggest TAB is because this is what DoomEdit uses, it could equally be any keyboard shortcut. It would probably be best to have an "Enter group" menu command exposed somewhere as well, perhaps on the context menu, for maximum discoverability.

Every 9/11 conspiracy has been completely debunked. Plus the Bush administration is far too incompetent to have been behind it. The reason the BBC reported the collapse 'before it happened' is that the majority of the building had collapsed, and only the slim veneer facing away from ground zero still stood.

I agree with Domarius. Actually, I'd like to see body-awareness. I think you can't correctly do reflections or player shadows without it. (expect to see glitchy reflections in TDM water and possibly problems with shadow clipping if player shadows are turned on) IMHO, the reason TDS felt so bad was because they prioritized 3rd-person appearances over first person feel, when designing the player's animations. I think body-awareness could feel perfectly natural if implemented correctly and without the need to "look cool" in third-person.

The point is that we have to stop the stupidity, and unfortunately, there's very little we can do at the source. It's a deadly and vicious circle. Educators don't know any better and therefore can't teach the children any better. What's worse is that generally they don't just not know better, but they refuse to admit that there is a better way of teaching them. They actively go out and try to poison their students' minds, although they generally don't see it as such. The final result is that they are conditioned to believe the church and to deny any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The churches themselves seek to encourage and reinforce this behavior at every step of the way. By getting their sheep into positions of power, they can ensure that status quo remains true to their god. Any and every attempt to counteract this process results in further backlash. To be honest, I don't see how this process can be stopped any time soon. Teaching science better would help, but would result in instant backlash--and of the very worst sort. To tell the truth, the only way we can really end this is by having a much higher rate of public acceptance. When was the last you ever heard of an atheist whose mere existence wasn't controversial? Exactly. True, but am I doing that? No. But, that sort of thinking can easily foster it, and that's the whole reason why I've been jumping on your case, so to speak. You have to know where to draw the line. Use their own beliefs to console them; use your beliefs, but don't teach them what their beliefs should be. Let them find them on their own.

@Nyarlathotep: You're not the only one with such predictions... As soon as Bush was elected, I predicted that he'd find some reason to go to war with Iraq. On 9/11, I predicted he'd abuse the tragedy as an excuse to declare war against Iraq. When he was talking about WMDs, I predicted there would be none, and furthermore I predicted that when we didn't find any, Bush would try to sweep the issue under the rug and claim that his goal was to "liberate" Iraq all along. It drives me bonkers that Bush is squandering the lives of those sworn to defend our country. Furthermore, rather than admit it, he keeps trying to put more and more of our troops in harm's way... To me, it has an ominous parallel to the fable about the lady who swallowed a fly.

Ah yeah it's a Gamasutra article, so you just have to register for a free account if you haven't already. But if you haven't already got one, then you probably don't need one, lol - cause this is one site you should already be regesitered with if you're into game development. Oh and I've only linked to page 3 for some reason. A lot of the interesting stuff happens there (but you should read from page 1 if you care) and the quote came from that page.

Sorry I took you out of context, I'll grant you I'd rather deal with someone who just doesn't know why they believe something rather than someone who has rigged up some Frankenstein style suite of rationalizations for what makes the world run. Yes, I hear quite a bit of that too, my brother says something along those lines as well. But its still faith. And I pick at him about it. Why do they think that? There has to be a why, or its no good in my book. You can't just say "These things are different, you can believe anything you like about them." Its true no one knows what comes after this life, but there is no reason to think there is anything, anyway, other than a complex of peoples hopes, fears, and dreams firmly rooted in this life. I used to be a "live and let believe" kind of guy but honestly not anymore. I'm going on jihad. But gently, the nice version of jihad, convincing people with argument and example.

Two points: one, this doesn't actually explain why my viewpoint is actually negative in any way, just that other viewpoints are better salve to some people; two, the objection that we skeptics have is that the afterlife amounts to the greatest propaganda campaign in the entirety of human history. To use your words, "...the 'logic' of the idea that something happens after death...won't stand up to scrutiny." You then suggest that the reason that such an idea may be allowed to persist despite such faulty logic is that the notion is comforting. You've essentially suggested that lying to loved ones is acceptable. While you can argue that using a loved one's preconceived beliefs are still acceptable (or your own beliefs), you can't argue that continuing to teach these flawed notions to children is still acceptable. If you believe that these ideas and notions are ultimately wrong, i.e., they don't stand up to scrutiny, then teaching (preaching) them is to deceive the public. Essentially, consoling a loved one must necessarily be an exception to the rule, rather than the norm. Let the children come to embrace these ideas on their own, if they do at all. Misguided or not, teaching your beliefs as anything else is wrongheaded and ultimately unacceptable. While someone who does not accept that their beliefs are unfalsifiable or downright wrong will generally preach their beliefs as the truth, someone who realizes this cannot, as they would necessarily be hypocritical to do otherwise. It is my firm belief that it is the responsibility of those who realize this (the only acceptable defense of belief is that it is a strictly personal one) to prevent the fallacious teaching of beliefs as truth. I suspect that the conception of one's (usually shared) beliefs as the one, ultimate truth is the source of the deadly disease that is fundamentalism.

Is it even necessary to have a ragdoll for these guys? I don't think we'd need one for the gameplay, and I'd say why except for some reason the forum won't let me post the rest of that sentence...

I can't disagree with that, we do have to maintain our composure and present the face of reason in all ways. Its a hard thing to do sometimes but thats our task, if we wish to win new friends over. But I think too we need to become a bit "fundamentalist" ourselves, in that we must cede no ground to these points of view in our talk and actions. Treat the individual with respect but the idea must be resisted. This doesn't necessarily mean going on the attack, although thats called for sometimes. But we have to constantly represent our views whenever possible, in the best possible manner but with a firm resolve to express them as being correct, not just on par with but actually correct. Here in the States, lots of fence sitters and common agnostics and so on talk of giving each side its due. To hell with that. We have to draw a line in the sand, because everyone else already has and they aren't budging any time soon.

I agree V but I don't agree with the argument that the stories of either side are equally balanced. No doubt there is intolerance on both sides, and as an non-Believer I feel my share to be honest and have said so, and intolerance is never a good thing for all the obvious reasons. And I have Believer friends and associates whom I respect very much, they are probably the reason I have not slipped into complete dismissal of them. But they are wrong. Not that we are right, we don't know, its our core strength, its a constant search, a (possibly) infinite process of trying to understand everything. We own the truth because we know we don't really have it, at least we should, Bog knows theres arrogance on both sides as well. So we rely on our senses, our reasoning, and our original ideas, at the same time banging a pot in our own ear saying "This isn't the final answer, its just the beginning, you have good tools but they are flawed." Everyone should think this way. No alternatives are acceptable.

Of course the things I've seen could probably be coincidence or whatever. But they can't be proven either way beyond all doubt, unless you have all the scientific evidence on hand, which you don't. So I'm happy to beleive what I want. Giving accounts here would lead to predictable "but that could just be x and y happening", and it would clog up this discussion with things I'm quite aware of. Nyarlathotep, yeah you did strawman my arguments - the idea that I don't believe in god but do, is ridiculous I'm not deluding myself. There are questions that are not answered, so there's a hole there. If you mean "deluding" as in "ignoring", then ignoring what? Ignoring the proof that nothing happens after death? There isn't any proof. I use things that I experience as a reason to beleive there is a guiding force, and something more than decomposition after death. That's pretty much it. Also I knew I'd get picked up on the "negative outlook" comment I forgot to mention I was aiming that at oDDity. @Spar - One might take it negatively because they might not be happy with the idea that they will cease to exist. Personally I like to think there's something more after that. @Orb - that's good, it's good to appreciate the fact that you have to make the most of things. I'm alone here, because I don't follow any sort of organised religion, or spiritualism, or philosophy, or whatever, requiring scientific proof for all things practical, and at the same time I allow my mind to wander into the areas that science has not answered, rather than just plain ignoring it.

I'm neither happy nor sad about it, I just accept it. Given the choice, I'd rather live for a few thousand years - it'd be great to see the future and what direction our species takes, and it annoys me that I'll never know, so it's not that I want to cease existing a few decades from now, it's just that I have no reason to think otherwise, and therefore I can't force or fool myself into a fantasy of something esle. How can you possibly fool yourself like that? It's ridiculous. Some specifics would be helpful here, though I'd image you're fearful that if you tell them, they'll be explained by other means and you'll no longer be able to abuse them to prop up your fantasy.

Oh absolutely, I agree. I think you should select at least one control point, and then hitting a key would propagate the selection to the rest of the brush/patch. Either of those sound great to me. A thought about the always on top issue: I can't really think of a reason why the viewports would have to be always on top windows. Maybe the solution is to take that away from them? Dialogs will always stay atop of them, and the user can toggle to close them. As it is now, I always seem to lose the Shortcuts list behind my iso view. Pressing buttons like a dope, "did I just freeze up DR?!" Nope, just lost something behind the damn viewports again.

Yeah, like that will happen! Well the only reason I wanted to play thief is not the campaign (not that I didnt want to) but I wanted T2X and why not (?) fan missions, in which I have never played even a single little tinish noobish one! Ah, never mind! As I said I got so sicked of trying that now I have not any urges to do anything! Maybe another try when normal audio drivers come out, but only this far! Or else I am gonna doom myself playing Crysis (LOL if this ever is gonna be doom!) ------->As for philoshophy yeah! I have caught myself doing this a lot! Its a way of life here! And especially when I was young and I was seeing my parents doing this I was wanting to get in the conversation and add my point of view too (well I was saing bulls**t but ok, I liked it..... ) --------> OK now it got multi-multi-multi-multi thread!