Messages

For the cream of the crop, you'll obviously want to go and check out: AGS Award Winners
If you're interested in games that do interesting stuff with the engine, make sure to check out the games that were nominated for or won "Best Programming" or "Best Non-Adventure". Some highlights among those are:
Colourwise by bicilotti
Adventures in the Galaxy of Fantabulous Wonderment by Yahtzee
Art of Theft by Yahtzee
TiLTOR
The Jackyard by Hofmeier
Plumberboy

One that appears to have skipped getting even nominated, but is really great, is IAMJASON

Aside from that, one of my personal favourites, although a fairly traditional adventure game, is The Winter Rose.

Hey!

I realised that my avatar hasn't been visible for ages, and when I checked, I realised why- it is my old (now defunct) imageshack link. So I uploaded to imgur and put the link in there, but every time I then click CHANGE PROFILE underneath (or even just paste in the link and hit enter), the page refreshes, informs me that "Your profile has been updated successfully", but now my Personalised Picture is set to "No Avatar".

So...help?

No, I think it's an interesting and important one to have. As has been said, you cannot define a race scientifically because any method would use arbitrary quantifications. However, this doesn't mean that the cultural notion of race is not based on biological, phenotypic principles.

Well, yes. That is what initially started this discussion on my end- I wanted to point out that there was no scientific basis for races. And yeah, sure, the cultural notion of race is based off phenotypic principles, like "This person's skin is darker than mine, so they are black". I don't think that is very meaningful, outside a purely cultural context.

Also, Danvzare, Aborigines are not a human subspecies. There is no living homo sapiens subspecies except us.

The test does go into more detail, which honestly just makes things vaguer and more confusing. I just skipped that stuff. I mean it has subcategories within the categories I mentioned, and categories further than that too (Northwestern European, Broadly Northwestern European, British & Irish, Scandinavian, Southern European, Broadly Southern European, Iberian, East Asian, Broadly East Asian & Native American, Yakut, etc. etc.). I get the feeling that they have it like that because it isn't all that easy to assign a race from DNA evidence, even if you have- simply having that information isn't really enough to assign a "race".
I would be pretty curious about other people who have taken similar tests, though. Somehow, barring some odd circumstances, I doubt anyone would be more than 80% on specific category. People think geographic intermingling is a recent thing, but it's probably gone back tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

If it's a matter of percentage, then aren't we the same race as chimpanzees (or some great apes)?

It is a matter that any percentages we decide to apply would be totally arbitrary.
But in the case of chimpanzees and great apes, we aren't the same race, or even the same species, because we cannot reproduce with them.

I'm not sure about the science, but my definition of race (a useful one) would be the difference between Dobermans and Rottweilers. They are most assuredly different, even though they share many mixed genes from wolves and wild dogs which overlap in most cases. They have different temperaments and different habits.

I would say that the scientific definition of race becomes useless once they decided that it doesn't exist. A different mix of the same basic building blocks absolutely results in a noticeably different result, with each its own unique characteristics.

Dog breeds are an interesting analogy, because most of the "direction" these breeds have taken are man-made (less so in the case of crossbreeding between wild dogs or dogs who escaped their owners) and specifically engineered as such. With dog breeds, I think the number is 30% genetic diversity between breeds: enough to correctly assign a breed just by looking at the DNA.
If we take geographic groupings (which seems to have been established in this thread as how we want to define "race" scientifically), for humans, the differences account for only 6% between the different groupings, and nowhere near as certain an applied label (and you'd still get mishmashes like my result).

You could presumably run a DNA analysis on Obama and figure out that his ancestry is about half European (mix of mostly English, with some German and other British contributions) and half Luo (probably with other African ethnicities mixed in). Based on that, you could assign him a racial identity, whether that's "black" (US), "colored" (South Africa), "mulatto" (Europe and its colonies in past times) or "mixed-race" (US again), "white" (Dominican Republic, perhaps) or something else, depending on local cultural convention.

So race is a social construct built on top of real (though mostly superficial) biological differences.

I did one of those DNA things once! After digging up the results, I find that I'm 61.7% European, 31.5% Asian, 3.4% Middle Eastern/North African, 0.2% Sub-Saharan African, and 3.2% unassigned. What "race" does that make me? Unless they've been living on an isolated hobbit island the last ten thousand years, I'm pretty sure anyone who got that test would have similar mixed up results. So what biological markers would you use? If you do something like "skin colour", then even the child of several generations of white or black/white unions (i.e. their test would show them to be majority "European") would still be called "black", which is pretty silly, and certainly not scientific.

This is technically racist of me to say, but I think it's exactly these differences that make races unique and valuable. I think it's a disservice to this uniqueness to suggest that race is a non-existent concept and that we all are and act the same.

Oh, I absolutely wouldn't say that race is a non-existent concept. I was simply saying it wasn't a scientific one.

Cassie brings to my mind an interesting point: The concept of "race" (as in a subspecies within a species) DOES exist in biology, but is NOT applicable to the human "races".

In South Africa, that's a "coloured" man, a mix between black and white.

Is "coloured" a separate race? Is it a scientific designation?

What I'm trying to get at is that it is impossible to define race biologically, you are still able to observe clear differences in human populations, differences which are genetic. One can sort white men from black men by looking at them, as you can sort red apples from green apples.

Atelier, is this a white man, or a black man?

Err...Atelier, scientifically, race DOESN'T mean anything. And this isn't some fancy new "SJW" "Politically correct" opinion.
I don't know how more simply I could explain this. There simply is no set of markers you could use to show "This person is of X race". Such a concept simply doesn't exist.
A bit silly, but go ahead and have a read of Race (human categorisation), and check up the references just to be sure .

Here are some highlights just from the beginning:

"Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.""

"The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings."

"Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (...) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity."

"For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"

[only]

Sorry yeah, I did switch the actions, but only accidentally. I don't think it matters because we are talking about a ban on Muslims which could be compared to a ban on blacks. Both are discriminatory but one is based on culture and one on race.

But considering the difference between discriminate and dislike (one is passive, the other is active), you can see my probing for clarification (as in the following quote)?

What about the idea of forcing people of a specific culture to have to register with the government, perhaps wear an patch on their clothes so they could be easily identified, and be forcefully interred in the case of a war with people of that culture?

Absolutely not what I've been saying - massive straw-man, par for the course in this thread.

I didn't say you had said that. I was just taking what you HAD said (or at least what I understood from what you wrote), that it is okay to discriminate based on religion, and shifting it to an extreme to give an example.

You're essentially saying a wholesale ban on people travelling from a country equates to a ban on the ethnic group, simply because that is where they live on the planet. But as I've said, the ethnic background and the culture of those people is an anthropological accident, and the two are linked only by virtue of how cultures develop and people settle. The Muslim registry is obviously going to be targeted at immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, because that is where the majority of the world's Muslims are from!

But all these things are linked. "Scientific" racists in the 19th used physical attributes, geographic location and culture as an explanation as to why Africans, for example, were subhuman. Heck, you know, there is no "black gene" or "white gene" or such, no combination of DNA that can give you "This person is black", so there is the idea that race as a whole is purely a social (or even cultural) construct!

[racism]

Discrimination based on what one genetically is (I won't hire him because he's black) is what racism is. Saying you dislike Muslims is not, because specific instantiations of religion and culture is not genetic. Those systems are abstract counterfactuals and I think can therefore be legitimately scrutinised and discriminated against.

See how you switched the actions there? Discrimination based on what one genetically is is what racism is, sure. What is discrimination (not simply saying you dislike them) based on what religion the person was born into called? Or heck, even the religion they converted into?
Is that as okay as "Saying you dislike them"?
Is it okay to discriminate against the worse cultures?
What about the idea of forcing people of a specific culture to have to register with the government, perhaps wear an patch on their clothes so they could be easily identified, and be forcefully interred in the case of a war with people of that culture?

As you yourself zeroed in on the point we are discussing at hand, the DISCRIMINATION of a people, so in that context, yes, "Muslim is not a race" isn't a valid counterclaim at all. That is the exact reason I mentioned the Christian convert (or heck, even born christian in a muslim country) point. Not because I was curious as to what would happen to them, but to show that in the end, it isn't their religion that is being targetted, rather their ethnic background. Another example: so far, all iterations of the "Muslim registry" idea I've read about are for immigrants, not the local population who may have converted. Not saying we won't get there, of course.

The problem here is that you can't "see" religion, so it is easier to go with alternates: colour of skin, type of clothes being worn, etc. Which is why you sometimes hear on islamophobic attacks on Sikhs as well. So essentially, it IS racism.

This is one of the biggest issues.  What we really need is a good path to citizenship for people like this.  Bring them into the system and get more of them paying taxes.

I had heard a claim about this recently, so I googled the exact sequence of words 'illegal immigrants pay more taxes', and as the top result, quoted in a box within the google page itself (as it sometimes does), was the following:

Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization. ... Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year. They pay their taxes.Oct 2, 2016
How much do undocumented immigrants pay in taxes? | PunditFact

The actual article goes into a lot more detail, and yeah, there are illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes, but it really is quite amazing, that there are illegal immigrants who are paying taxes for benefits that they themselves cannot avail. The contrast the article made in that paragraph to Trump, who proudly insinuated(?) that he had not paid income tax for 20 years is pretty funny .

And yeah, plans for a muslim registry, which apparently are in discussion now would absolutely would be racist as well as xenophobic (and yes, racist, despite the "BUT MUSLIMS ARE NOT A RACE!" counterclaim that so often comes up. The registry would be for immigrants from muslim countries, so "brown people". And I don't think someone having converted to Christianity would suddenly make it okay for them to skip being registered), so it isn't conjecture, or stuff that he said years ago, or stuff that he just said crassly to be more populist.

Anyhow, a bit off-topic, or maybe not, but it is very interesting to me how in recent years as a response to accusations of racism towards a third party, some people bring up "We have to be more tolerant of peoples' differing opinions!"
Even in this election, part of the post-election conversation was "It was so obvious that Trump won! You shut all these people out! What did you expect would happen! You need dialogue!", exemplified by that irritatingly jarring fake interview video that kept autoplaying a couple pages back.
And that's interesting, because my understanding of most responses to racism have always been:
1) If it is a criminal offense, report it
2) Otherwise, if it is from an unrelated or not closely related party (some other group), you exclaim the wrongness openly, mock it perhaps, so that society as a whole would not come under the impression that it is okay, and the people would hopefully shut up with embarrassment- like most people were doing with Trump's supporters
3) If it is someone you know, and could possibly influence (your kid?), explain to them in no uncertain terms what they did is wrong
4) If it is out of your control (your parents, grandparents, relatives), ignore it, or passively show your displeasure

These people are suggesting a third option, which is "dialogue". I am very curious how this dialogue would go. For every racist person, you'd introduce them to a nice person from the race they were racist towards?

My literature teacher got quite annoyed with my shallow preferences when he asked about our favourite poems and I mentioned Tennyson's Lady of Shalott as one. I guess he was hoping for something "deeper" . I know the beginning from memory:
On either side the river lie,
Long fields of barley and of rye,
that clothe the wold and meet the sky,
and through the field the road runs by,
To many towered Camelot.

And up and down the people go,
Gazing where the lillies blow,
Round the island there below,
The Island of Shalott.
_________
Another poem I know from memory is a Yeats one. Apparently it is part of a thematic series he did about roses and crosses, but I just take it in the sense of adversity making one stronger:
He who measures gain and loss,
When he gave to thee the rose,
Gave to me alone the cross.

Where the blood-red blossom blows,
In a wood of dew and moss,
There thy wandering pathway goes,
Mine where waters brood and toss.

Yet one joy have I held close,
He who measures gain and loss,
When he gave to thee the rose,
Gave to me alone the cross.

I'd still be interested in hearing what you don't like about verb coins (and I don't mean those where you have to hold down the mouse button) and what other input method you would suggest that doesn't rely on having a right mouse button.

It isn't just the having to hold down the mouse. A verbcoin usually hides whatever you want to interact with, which I think is ridiculous. And having it stay on screen without holding down the mouse brings it's own issues- for example, accidentally clicking it open means you have to close it before being able to do anything else. And if you have to do this all with only 1 button (as you are suggesting, to cater to mobile- which I think really should have its own separate interface, and not a shared one), that makes things even more complicated.

I think the point that is being misunderstood is that people are framing this as a 'simplicity of the 2 button interface vs the complexity of the verbcoin' argument, when in fact, as I understand it, Radiant (and my) opinion is more that people might (according to the story they're constructing) prefer the simplicity of 2 button, or they may opt for something more complex, but totally OUTSIDE of that discussion, and not related to it, the verbcoin is simply a bad method of interaction, to the point where I'd personally even say having a permanent onscreen verb list (like the early Monkey Island games) is preferable if you want to go for something with a little more interactive complexity.

I keep thinking that he can't possibly be as cartoony as he appears, and any moment he'll do an about-turn with a 'Haha! Fooled ya!', but that seems less and less likely. It'll be an interesting couple of years for the rest of the world too.

Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?

Because she's a woman.

Ha ha ha!
Oh this thread has given me so many laughs already.

Sorry I am missing the joke. I certainly didn't mean to imply it was the only reason.

It was an observation from when I worked 6 years in a sawmill with mostly Indian and Pakistani immigrants.

Judging from his reaction, I get the feeling Adeel thought you were being non-serious with your response.
While there's no doubt that there are issues with misogyny there (notwithstanding cultural differences like eye contact being considered aggressive and confrontational rather than an indication of trustworthiness and warmth), I'm not sure that'd be a valid reason to not vote Hillary, considering that Pakistan elected the first female head of a Muslim majority country twice (first time almost 30 years ago), and while I don't know the politics of Adeel's family, he is in her (party's) stronghold city.

1.Creamy
2.Kumpel
3.Avirosb

The arrangement and setup seems a bit boring. Maybe you can add some things to the foreground (vases, umbrella/coatstands, tables, shelves, etc.), or vary the shape of the rooms.

They don't look like very important rooms, though, more like rooms you'd just pass through to get to the important stuff, in which case, they seem done, now move on to the next !
Otherwise, you may want to vary their shape as well?

Gabriel Knight?