Messages

I don't get those that only feel the need to be good because otherwise god would punish them. How about being good because it works? For the community and for the individual.

No disagreements here.

Believing in a god "Just in case" is one of the stupidest reasons to believe in a god.

I wasn't making a case one way or another. I did say I got the passage from an investment book; I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. But what is a good reason to belive in a god? To go to heaven? Certainly that's the promise of belief, but is that any better of a reason?

also, one can test the claims made of believers in god. Prayer affects the real world in some way, test it.

For example? I wasn't trying to belittle anyone's religion or deny the existence of God. I was merely hypothesizing that if god exists, then he's a part of our physical reality, and thus there should be evidence of his existence. Certainly that's a reasonable argument? If you know of some experimental evidence that I'm not aware of, please clue me in!

Of course, it's important to distinguish between the specific beliefs held by individuals and the matter of God's existence.

True, but establishing the facts behind the matter can help clear up a lot of argument. I can claim that I believe the world is flat - after all, despite what everyone says, it still looks flat to me, and I haven't circled it either - but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It'd be nice if we could do the same thing with all the fundamentalists who engage in terrorism, violence, discrimination, and countless other atrocities in the name of god. Probably wouldn't stop them from acting out, but at least they wouldn't be able to justify it with religion anymore.

if someone can prove to me the inexistence of God, I'll accept that.

An interesting idea. I wonder what exactly it would take to accomplish this? I also wonder who the burden of proof would fall on (the provers or disprovers)? I imagine one's stance on this would depend on how religious one is.

Maybe both sides can take comfort(?) in the fact that establishing proof in the real world is nigh impossible. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, even our scientific theories are "just" theories that have so far been supported by experimental evidence.

Seeing as a theory must provide testable predictions, I wonder how someone would even go about testing the existence of God? What kind of experiment would support the existence (or nonexistence) of God? But certainly the existence of a god must have some observable impact on the nature of reality?

Or I suppose we could look at it the way I saw it cleverly put in an investment book I recently read:

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God exists.

Suppose you're wrong. In the 1st case, you'll end up spending an eternity in hell. In the 2nd case, you've needlessly tried to live a good, ethical life. Which is worse?

N Korea warn that any US sanctions imposed on them will be a "declaration of war"

I think North Korea is still technically at war with the U.S. and South Korea. Not much of a threat, is it?

Since there seems to be so much interest on this topic, I'd recommend people check out http://religionfacts.com/. I stumbled upon it myself recently, and while I wouldn't take it as the final authority, it's definitely a nice reference. Not only will it give you a sense of all the different flavors of Christianity and various other religions, it'll help explain stuff like why belief in the resurrection of Jesus, instead of being some sort of cop-out, is central to the Christian faith.

I also recently read a good review of a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. A sort of "athiest's bible," I guess it argues against religion in all its forms - extremist and moderate. The review particularly recommended it for religious people to really test and question what it is they believe in. Looks like an interesting read, and I may pick it up when I have some time.

Today it's snowing, even though it's bright and sunny out. It's much too early in the year for this kind of weather.

And my new apartment is still a wasteland of boxes. But instead I'm doing this. Should I worry?

And yes, please say it again.

Nah, I'm done with this silly little condescending game. I said this was an argument I didn't want to get into, because there's nothing to argue about, and I'm not going to have my words twisted into a defense of Bush or his policies. We're arguing about something we more or less agree about. I think I made it quite clear in my last post that I was merely trying to advocate diplomatic engagement in an international community to jointly resolve differences and deal with troublesome/rogue states instead of embracing isolationism and letting problems grow unchecked. As a part of this, I think it's important for citizens to keep themselves informed and engage in discussion so we can hold our governments accountable.

That's what I was attempting to do when I joined this thread, especially as some of the initial posts suggested that this issue was above our heads and we should just stick to our video games. I acknowledge I made a muddled point about Iraq that was generating the wrong response, and I've tried to clarify my position, keep the conversation civil, and steer it back to topic. Yet it's been repeatedly pulled back to the invasion of Iraq and has degenerated into baseless, off-topic accusations of my country which I have already freely admitted has acted wrongly. Since no one's bothered to respond to my comments on North Korea or engage in thoughtful discussion on any other topic, I'll assume there's nothing to talk to about.

Did you see that I typed two links ?

I guess I didn't look closely enough at the second link ... I thought it was a generic front page for a domain that hadn't been set up. Plus, with the tongue, I thought you were expressing frustration at not being able to find the codec. My mistake!

[faaaaabricated]

Hmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.

What the hell does this even mean?

Well, I guess it means that, just because a dictatorial regime says they don't have WMD, and just because there aren't flashing neon signs identifying their weapons stockpiles, doesn't make it true that they don't have weapons or are trying to acquire them. Especially when said regime does everything possible to prevent the international community from verifying it.

I dare you to say it. Say it!

Hold on, let me just make sure I get this right .... faaaaabricated. There, feel better?

Although this report and this report might disagree.

Not that I'm condoning America's invasion ...

Do I think he deserved to be invaded? No.

Is there some confusion about where I stand here? Let me say it again so as to be clear: I do not think America should have invaded Iraq.

Look, I can see I'm coming down on the wrong side of an argument I wasn't trying to get into. I was merely taking issue with the comment that certain countries had been rewarded or punished for doing nothing. Libya, although not a world threat, did have a weapons program. Iraq, although as we now know was just bluffing, had not proven they didn't have a weapons program and in fact was deliberately deceptive about their capabilities.

The implication is that we should just leave countries like Iran and North Korea to their whim because we don't know with certainty that they have WMD. Even now, we don't know what North Korea's true capabilities are. But short of them dropping a nuke on somebody, will we ever know with certainty? But when a country violates international treaty, throws weapon inspectors out of their country, makes belligerent remarks about destroying another country, and is implicated in smuggling black-market nuclear technology, surely the international community should take notice and use reasonable steps to prevent said country from acquiring dangerous technologies? And use incentives and rewards to encourage them to embrace peaceful means? Iraq, if nothing else, has shown us why we shouldn't invade countries based on what we think we know. But history has certainly shown us that we shouldn't just sit idle and let threatening nations arm themselves to the teeth.

Just googling xvid immediately gave me this and this...

XviD is an open-source implementation of the DivX codec. The homepage you linked to (xvid.org) only distributes it as source code. You can download an installable binary from here. Or, you can install the DivX codec, if you so desire. They do have a version for free, but it's a rather big and messy piece of bloatware.

... the game is just not Monkey Island like anymore.Ã,  It's almost as if they just made a game with a plot and characters similar to the ones in 1-3.

Actually, I had reached that conclusion after playing MI3.

... but 2d graphics have more heart, and they had hours of time put into them.

Hey now, it can take lots of computers lots of hours to render all that 3D.

So much confusion and deception ... I sense the work of the Devil. :o

Errr... Japan, Australia, Russia, the USA, &c have confirmed it.

At the time I wrote the post, there hadn't been any confirmation. At least, not from any of the articles I read. And this article and this article would suggest we still don't really know.

3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games.

Oh, well, that's all right then As long as you believe they'll be pointed at the USA, rather than the countries all around NK that their conventional weapons are pointed at.

I was being sarcastic ... note the smiley. You take exception to this, and not to people saying "This is too scary, I'm going to stick to my video games!"?

I don't doubt that North Korea has lots of weapons pointed at lots of different countries. What I was referring to was that Kim Jong Il has specifically cited American "belligerence and pressure" as the reason for developing nukes.

Really? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary.

Hmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.

No, they had to leave because the UN determined they wouldn't be safe since the coalition of the willing was about to start an invasion.

You're right, I was mistaken. But does that change the fact that the Iraqi government didn't let them see everything they wanted to, and that the inspectors still didn't have the full picture when they left?

And now...?

Uh, what's your point? I was taking issue with the comment that Libya got rewarded for giving up a weapons program that "didn't exist" and that Iraq was invaded even after "proving" they didn't have a weapons program. Did Iraq have WMD? No. In fact, it doesn't even look like there was even much of a program left. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Does that mean Saddam Hussein wasn't trying to violate UN sanctions and get a program restarted? No. Did he throw open his doors for all to see and show the world he had no WMD? No. Do I think he deserved to be invaded? No. But he certainly wasn't an angel from heaven either.

My main concern here is that my country (U.S.A) is going to freak out and go all Operation North Korean Freedom and stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and thus provoke something we all really don't want to see.

Don't worry ... we're way too far over our heads in Iraq to spare any time for the real nuclear threats in the world, or to even to pacify the first country we invaded, which had the full support of the world and was initially stunningly successful.

Today I got the keys to my new apartment: A sweet downtown pad with a bunch of gorgeous women living in my building. Tomorrow the movers deliver all my stuff, and maybe someday I'll actually get all the boxes unpacked. Maybe if I unpacked the TV and computer last, it would help ....

A few things to keep in mind here:

1. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any 3rd-party confirmation yet that North Korea has actually done what it claims.

2. If they actually detonated a weapon, they're still far from actually having a useable missile. First, the weapon is most likely too big and bulky to be fit into a missile. And second, when they conducted missile tests earlier this summer, their prototype exploded seconds after take-off.

3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games.

In short: while this is obviously bad news, I don't think there's no reason to panic. Hopefully international pressure will keep him in line. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il is very unpredictable, and I think he grows only more defiant as pressure mounts against him. But other than dramatic posturing, I'm not quite sure there's anything he can do about it .... yet.

It's a great asset for making a deal. Libya gave up a weapons program that didn't exist and got lucrative oil deals and had sanctions dropped against it, if North Korea has genuine weapons to give up, they'll probably get a free car in the deal as well. After all, if you simply don't have a weapons program, and then deny that there is one, and then have observers come in to prove you don't have one, you end up being invaded.

First off, Libya did have an operational weapons program, and (in additional to Iran and North Korea) had even received equipment through Pakistan's black market. However, they weren't anywhere close to having a functioning weapon.

Second, Iraq was less than honest - and in fact deliberately deceptive - about the state of their weapons program. The inspectors eventually gave up because they weren't able to conduct inspections to their satisfacation. Not that I'm condoning America's invasion, but the truth is that nobody knew what kind of weapons Iraq had until after they were invaded.

What exactly can talking about it achieve? It's not like anyone really thinks that crazy dictators with nuclear weapons is a great idea, it's that noone can do anything about it.

Uh, perhaps to stay informed about important world events? Or maybe because our governments might try to do something about it, and it would be nice to know enough to make an informed decision about whether or not I agree with what they're doing? Or maybe because, if I decide it bothers me enough, I can find out how I can do something about it?

only you will see your details about your pc etc, no-one else will, not even him. It's a bit off-putting though, I agree! But I also know those images are completely harmless.

Not quite true. Your IP address, browser, and operating system information is transmitted every time you request data on the internet, so he could know it if he decides to keep the information. Even this forum logs your IP address whenever you post a message. Would it be useful to him? Probably not. Harmless? Sure. But, as the picture makes uncomfortably clear, it does mean you leave a trail whenever you browse the web.

Actually, after reading the dictionary, I guess post-modernism doesn't really account for technical entities like consoles.

I think it's time to update the definition for the new millenium:

"Of or relating to art, architecture, literature or video games that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes."

Plus, I really want to start calling myself a post-modernist gamer. I think I'll put it on my business cards.

Yeah, let's see the Wii do that!

"Cover your eyes folks! Them's lasers!"

I think that games with gratuitous efforts to kill the player (most sierra games) are just there to make the game artificially difficult in lieu of clever puzzles and gameplay, but a game that only has you die a few times in key situations to reinforce danger is important--not because the player can just reload, but because it sets a tone and makes it clear that his/her actions can end in death.

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. And it was clear from playing Mind's Eye that this was your intent, which is why I was ok with it. Another game where I thought player death was appropriate was 5 Days a Stranger. But as a counterpoint, I think the end of Monkey Island 2 where you're trying to defeat LeChuck was an enjoyable experience because you couldn't die. Imagine how annoying that sequence would have been if LeChuck killed you every time you ran into him! But when you consider the style of each game, this wouldn't have worked at all in 5DAS - in fact, it would have been rather laughable.

So yes, killing the player does definitely go toward establishing a game's tone. But given that death is just a minor inconvenience, I think failure really needs to be done some other way. Unless you restrict the player's ability to recover from death (limiting save opportunities, for example), but I think it would be difficult to do this in a way acceptable to players.

LOL! You make me laugh Sylpher. I like you. Invite me to your eighth birthday party.

This from a 15-year old? : Now that's good comedy!

If you don't see any merit in rote repetition of gameplay until you overcome a challenge, then I fear you don't seem to see the merit in gaming.

Yes, but don't you see how this works differently in adventure games from action games? Challenge still exists when replaying action games, not so with adventure games. I've gotten to the last level of Ghouls 'n' Ghosts, but sometimes I don't even get past the first. I've gotten to level 3, round 2 of Qbert, but usually I don't get past level 2. In adventure games, once I've progressed up to a certain point, I can do so again, everytime, without fail, and without really even trying.

If it is, you won't mind dying (or losing) and redoing the section. That is what I think we should be focusing on, not as easy and painless a storytelling experience possible.

I never said I have a problem dying or losing in games. I was trying to point out why some people had issues with the player dying in Mind's Eye (and adventure games in general). From a design perspective, there would have been alternate ways to handle that situation, and I was attempting to discuss those options. If the obstacle is "get down this hallway," is it really necessary to kill the player if he fails? Is it really "losing" when in a matter of seconds you can be right back at the same point to try again, or just a really annoying way to temporarily impede the player? Surely the choices one makes in how we're going to hamper the player's progress and inject some risk into the game directly impact how fun it is?