Messages

I do not obsess, worry, or stay up nights worrying about an asteroid hitting the planet. However it is going to happen at some point in the future (probably not in any of our lifetimes) but it will happen again and the more prepared we are (advancing space exploration) the better.

I'm posting from my phone and it sucks a bit. I'll post more when I get home.

I didn't say anything about evolution stopping because we start building things.  That makes no sense at all (just by itself) and even less sense as some form of opposing opinion to what I said.

As far as "blow[ing up] space rocks" will have an impact on ... something.  Yeah, only the continued survival of our species.  Totally unimportant I know.

However, blow[ing up] space rocks is not the way to go if an object is on a collision course with the earth.  You risk turning one large object into potentially millions of objects still heading toward the Earth.  The best idea would be to "push" the object off its path.  If we find it early enough (which would be more likely if we are exploring space as we should be) we'd only have to nudge it slightly which would alter its path enough to make it miss the planet.

Or we can ignorantly sit around doing nothing.  It is easier that way. 

Maybe we could pray for the space rock to miss us?

So rather than taking the [intelligent and logical] steps to create a space elevator (or any other method to expand our species off the planet) we should just sit idly by for a few million years until we get wiped out by a virus or swarms of insects.  That makes much more sense.

It's those same kind of defeatist attitudes that I suspect people like Columbus had to deal with in the past.  It is human nature to explore, to push boundaries, to investigate the things we don't understand.  When we suppress that instinct we stagnate as a species.  Not to mention the huge advances such exploration will usher in.

I can usually just ignore the negativity because, one way or another, we will explore space.  It's inevitable.  We just need to wade through the bullshit that those in opposition throw in the way.  I'd be really curious (though hope to never have to test the theory) to see how quickly those naysayers would eat their words if/when we detect a large mass approaching earth on a collision course and we find out that had we spent the time, money and energy on space exploration (as we should have) we'd have the ability to do something about it (like maybe put a counter-measure into space via the space elevator).  It would be some powerful irony although not very satisfying as the outcome, the destruction of our species, would rather suck.

I do get it though.  Pessimism is easier than optimism.  It's easier to adopt a negative attitude.  I think it's probably a way to protect against disappointment.

[source]

I think Mods is referring to the tiny (undetectable) meteorites that are [I think] a much larger threat than NASA necessarily wants the general public to know.  The kind that would travel through the space shuttle (possibly destroying it) with ease.

As for the space elevator ... I think any politician (who makes the budget decisions for NASA) should be thrilled at the prospect of a space elevator.  Right now to get 1 gallon of water into space costs approximately 80,000 USD [source].  The space elevator would drastically reduce that cost not just for water, but for all manner of cargo which now must be lifted via bulky and mega-expensive rockets.  The new Ares program is a more cost-effective method to put cargo into space but it has gone back to the old Apollo days as far as "polluting" space goes (all the debris and such that it just abandons in space) and is still extremely pricey (I don't have figures for the cost reduction, I remember hearing it is something like a 1/4 reduction of the cost of the space shuttle delivery system).

We NEED to be in space.  We NEED to go to the moon, and Mars (and beyond).  It's pathetic that no human being has left low-earth orbit since 1972.  I'm a huge advocate of space exploration though. I think it's the most important thing we, as humans, should be putting effort into right now ... so my opinions on the matter, I admit, are probably a tad biased. 

Imagine how we could advance the space program if we took the trillions of dollars we're dumping into useless foreign wars and put it towards space exploration... makes me sad.

[not]

If you want to check out open source games, nothing can beat the DemoQuest game. I can't find an exact link, but the thread for part 3 is here.

However, please do not post in that thread asking about it!! 

[this]

If you like that, you'll probably love this.

I find this fascinating and would be first in line to ride it!

Excellent work man!  Seriously good stuff.

Write some software (plugin) for AGS to make platformers like this and get it out there so those guys over at Stencyl will be screwed over for never releasing their vapor-ware!

You really think if cannabis smoking is legalized, they'll let you grow your own pot? Really? And if companies put all that crap in cigarettes to make them more addictive, what will be stopping them from doing the same with joints, if the same commercial model is taken?

Why would you not be able to grow your own marijuana plant(s) when it's made legal?  You can grow your own tobacco so why not weed as well?  It's a naturally occurring plant that is, relatively, easy to cultivate.  I mean come on ... if all those stupid, lazy, ignorant, and crazy pot-heads out there can grow it then it can't be that difficult!

And the argument that "They" will put all the same chemicals into it as cigarettes is a tad flawed ... because those opposed to marijuana seem to think it's already addicting.  So why would "they" need to put any more addictive chemicals in it?  Also, most potheads I know wouldn't accept altered weed ... weed is natural and requires no processing.

I giggle [quite] a bit at the "it's just as addicting as cigarettes" argument.  I've been around a LOT of weed smokers in my day and not a one of them was physically addicted to it.  I've known a few that were, no argument, mentally addicted but it was nothing like the physical addiction that comes with cigarettes (I'm an ex-weed smoker and an ex-cigarette smoker so I have some idea about quitting both).  You can get mentally addicted to anything.

As for the "exacerbating" mental illnesses theory ... I don't know.  That sounds really far-fetched to me.  I would think any "altering" substance could have an affect on an existing condition.  I am going to need far more than simple conjecture before I'd believe that weed actually causes such ailments (or even just makes them worse (at least worse than any other altering substance))

That sounds like lack of knowledge, fear-mongering and paranoia more than anything else.  Like the hippy movement got back in the 60s because, as we all know, the hippies were a bunch of drug-crazed sexual psychopaths!!  "ACID IS GROOVY", they shout as they rape your puppy!!

Oh come on!
Debates aren't useless just because people disagree strongly. I came into this thread with a pretty open mind, and I've already shifted a lot in my opinions.
I mean, we have to be able to discuss something in here, more than just general mindless whackiness.

Oh I agree!  I'm not saying this type of debate should be banned or anything.  Just that it seems like it's pretty similar to the religion/science debate which never really goes anywhere but back 'n forth and back 'n forth over and over until eyeballs start bleeding.

"marijuana is bad"

"no it's not, show me evidence"

Back 'n forth.

I'm not likely to be swayed off my opinion unless somebody can present something (fact/evidence) that I've not heard a thousand times already and don't see as a good point.  I am willing to change my opinion, and will listen/read the replies, but I've had this discussion many [many] times before and nobody has ever presented anything that makes me see marijuana as a "bad" thing that deserves to be illegal.

The question(s) I usually ask those that dislike weed (don't smoke it) and think it should remain illegal is:

What harm would its legalization have on you?  Do you think, if it's legal, you'll suddenly have a harder time not smoking it?

I'm sure there are those out there (who don't smoke it solely 'cause it's illegal) who might be interested in trying it when it becomes legal but I don't really see a huge increase happening where zombie-stoners suddenly rise up and overtake the government.  Most pot-heads I know tend to be peaceful and (sometimes annoyingly) chatty.  Places that sell junk food would certainly see an increase in sales.

Legal or illegal millions of people are going to smoke it anyway.

But what I don't get is argumenting with casualties.
...and? Infamous Zyklon B gas killed 1.2 million people in nazi death camps, "only". That's during 3 years and still less than alcohol does in a year! Should we legalize it now?

The legalization argument must be made to the "law makers".  Those law makers site, as their reasons as to why it's an illegal drug, the harmful effects of marijuana.  Pointing out (my links) that there are worse vices that cause more harm, and that are legal, is a valid point to make.  I fail to see where the confusion comes in there?

Relating it zyklon B actually helps my point (though I'm not sure why you'd make the connection ... it's not like a murderous regime is throwing people into shower rooms and making them drink vodka until they die from it).  Zyklon B was originally a pesticide (legal to own) and was altered to be used in the death camps.  Chlorine (which millions put in their pools every day) could be used just as lethally as Zyklon B (mix in a little ammonia and you get mustard gas (I realize it's a tad more complicated than that)) and is totally legal to buy.  Should we make the sale of chlorine illegal too?

As I stated in my previous post; just about anything can be used in a bad and/or harmful way.  Marijuana is [in my opinion] less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes (or chlorine) so it doesn't make sense for it to be illegal when those others aren't.  Again, I don't partake in the herb, I just find the situation silly.

Also, personally, I find this debate useless as it's seemingly as strong as the religion v science debate with both sides so strongly opposed to the other.

However; to those against the legalization I'd suggest getting ready for disappointment.

I do not smoke weed [anymore] but I support its legalization.

There are over 2 million alcohol related deaths each year [source] *

There are over 400,000 tobacco related deaths each year. [source] *

The whole "there are no marijuana related deaths" myth is silly.  While nobody overdoses on it, there are still related deaths/injuries but they are dwarfed by the number of alcohol/tobacco related deaths.  I couldn't find any reliable "yearly deaths caused by marijuana" facts but that right there says something in and of itself.

Anything can be abused if you don't moderate your consumption of it.  Sugar can kill you if you use too much of it.  It can lead to obesity, heart disease, diabetes... the list goes on and on yet nobody bitches about the legality of sugar or the huge (pun intended) problem of obesity it creates (or adds to).

* these "facts" were found by a quick 'net search.  I don't support them nor claim they are accurate.  Just using them to illustrate my point(s)

Please review the Forum Rules and update your post with the required information or I will have to lock this.

Thanks for the update.

AngelicCharon - While it was only just over 90 days ... you still bumped a thread over 90 days old (doesn't matter if it was mentioned somewhere else, it's still the rules!).  Please do not do so again, thanks!

While this will "date" me a bit ... for me it was Erin Gray on Buck Rogers [in the 25th century]



That picture still gives me goosebumps!

There was one episode where she was very distressed and Hawk and Buck were comforting her and she was crying.  I suddenly realized I had different feelings for women than "motherly".  Oddly enough this was when I first realized that I have an absolute weakness for women's tears.  I don't tell my girlfriend(s) this, of course, but if they start crying they can get just about anything they want from me.

I was a bit overwhelmed with Google Wave ... it appears to have so many features that I kind of got lost.  I can see it as a way to sort of replace IM, ICQ, MSN, etc (maybe; people are resistant to change).  I have to agree with those who've already said it the most practical application I can see for it is for work purposes.  A public AGS wave would be cool too.

I am usually skeptical about new things that claim so much "future changing" ... but Google hasn't let me down before so I'm still waiting to see where this goes.  My brother and I enjoyed a nice game of competitive Sudoku.  Surely that counts for something?

Since you are not working on the game any more (IE it's not "in production") I'm going to lock this thread.  Feel free to send Dervish a PM if you feel like trying to convince him to keep working on the game (as requested in his first post).

Will Noelia be there?  I might be convinced to visit...

I can understand both Eric's and Andail's points.  Both have their pros and cons.  I would like to find a time/place where the three of us can sit down and discuss this very important issue (and maybe even high-five with some children).

Now can I win the nobel peace prize?

I agree this is very cool for people that have trouble making backgrounds!  For me personally I still prefer making it all myself from scratch, but I can see how this would be very appealing for people that do not like to (or cannot) do it on their own!  Really interesting to see these new techs that are coming out.

Do any of you know how we can get him on the nomination list for next year?

Simple.  Have him stop doing anything but making promises.  He'd be shoe-in for sure then!