Messages

Good game, thanks for it!

While I agree on several points - when interpreted from your point of view - I have to indicate that several of your statements can also be interpreted differently. My apologies if I sound harsh doing such.
It should be noted, that I never said it was (on the contrary, I've indicated it's importance; including it's importance to the field of science)

I didn't say that. And don't worry, so far you didn't seem to come through as harsh, but you do seem to be incosistent. See below.

While I am completely willing to agree with this, the problem of course resides in the question what is 'misleading'. Simply because what you consider 'misleading' is directly associated with your personal point of view. However...if your personal point of view affects the results and how think someone is allowed to interpret them, than you've lost sight of one of the goals of science: it tries to be objective; as opposed to subjective science which by some itself is considered to be a pseudo-science.

No. A statement is not misleading and can be considered a scientific truth if it can be experimentally verified. It has nothing to do with my point of view, because my statement can only be considered scientific if you (and anyone else) can do the same experiment and get the same results. In that sense even science involves some faith, since most of us simply believe the scientists that gravity works the way it does - most of us do not actually verify it. But this kind of belief is different from religious belief, because any of us can question the laws of gravity, devise a new law, implement experiments and show that the new law is correct and the old one is not. The only requirement is that the new law must explain all phenomena related to gravity just as well as the old one did.

While scientific truth is not "absolute truth", because measurements depend on properties of physical devices and results are biased by measurment errors, they still can be considered true and they're still not affected any personal views.

Using Occam's razor doesn't apply here, simply, because while it states: 'all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one', the decision about which one is the simplest solution will be different when you ask a theist and an atheist in this case. Which again shows that the solution depends on a persons pre-assumption, and thus that is subjective.

The problem with your logic is that a scientific approach excludes personal preferences and views, while a religious answer is deeply corrupted with it. You might just as easily get different answers from two theists, but you will not get different answers from two scientists. (If you do, there will be a logical explanation for the difference and there should be a way - maybe in the future - to evaluate them. Something like this is fundamentally impossible with religion, because of the very nature of it: you cannot question the basics of it, because you become a heretic.)

Atheism only works if you don't question the non-existence of God (because if you start to question that fundamental principle, you can't maintain being an atheist technically), so being an atheist requires someone to be as ignorant as being a theist

This is a patently incorrect statement. Science doesn't even concern itself with a god (just like I don't.) I don't need to "not question" the nonexistence of a god, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Describing reality doesn't require the use of a god, because it can already be done in simpler (and verifiable) terms. I'd only need to even think of questioning the nonexistence of a god if I really, really wanted to somehow pull it into the solution. This would be a result corrupted by a personal view, as you pointed out.

And just because some people don't accept it, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with reality...now does it?

You consistently seem to forget about an important detail: not a single theological/religious statement can be experimentally verified. All the claims (which are by the way, 2000 years old) are such that there is not even the theoretical possibility to verify them.

If I told you that I just healed 500 people by the touch of my hand, would you believe me? You wouldn't (rightly so.) Yet religious people do this on a regular basis, based on a text that was written some 2000 years ago and then translated multiple times by people of different times and cultures. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

That's one of the reasons why I try to interpret data/information from as many different points of views as possible...it's the closest I can come to objectivity.

You can make any statements and come to any conclusions you like. You're free to interpret anything in any way. But your interpretation will only relate to reality if it can be verified by others. If I come to a conclusion about reality and you show that my conclusion is wrong, my conclusion has no value anymore. I might stick to it but that'd make me a medical case.

Science only has contradicting theories because we are ignorant about details of nature that are important enough to have a big effect on our experiments. History shows us that most such contradictions were cleared up when science advanced.

One example is classical physics and quantum physics: Planck had to introduce the concept of quantum to be able to explain heat radiation. There was a massive fight againts quantum mechanics, but it was shown that it is more successful in describing nature than classical physics.

We now have a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Does this mean that they're equally useless and we should throw them away? By no means! It only means that one (or both) theories have missing parts because we're unaware of something important. But just because of this, there is no need to pull a god out of a hat and say "nature is so effing complicated, only a god could possible have made it."

The solution to these contradictions (especially if they really bother you) is to study up on those areas of science and think about these problems in a clear and logical way. That's the only chance we have to advance.

Religion may have many benefits for the little man (I don't question its role to give comfort and faith) but it does not bring humanity forward, in any way.

I do question the role of faith and religion. Ethics and morals are independent of religion and one can comfort another human being in ways that are independent of the Bible. This book has a historical value, but nothing else. Keep in mind: most of the Bible was written 2000 years ago, when it was common "knowledge" that the Earth is flat and illnesses are a revenge from God, not something caused by a virus. Even most religious people nowadays don't think like that, but - as Andail said - it's not because new wisdom was discovered in the 2000-year old texts, but because science shed some light on illnesses and we know it better. Even they know it and when they become sick, they take medicine, not rush to the church to pray for forgiveness.

Do read the book "End of Faith". It discusses faith and religion, the problems with them and possibilities to replace them with things that are based on reason but still provide comfort and answers to spiritual questions.

It is true, that mathematics is not a science, but it's also not a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is "bad science", something that misleads people. Mathematics, even though it's not a science, still has a deep connection to reality, even though it's not understood why. But this missing understanding aside, the application of mathematics and the scientific method formulated statements about the world that can be verified experimentally and they tell us what reality IS.

This is what gives such a power to science: you can make a statement, verify it and then others can also verify it, so it becomes common knowledge about the world. When it turns out that the statement is not exactly right (like Newton's gravitational laws), the laws can be restated in a new form and re-verified. The old, now incorrect law can be abandoned or it can be used only in certain scenarios. There is no unquestioning faith involved in science or in mathematics. Everything in science is up for questioning but when you do so, you need to prove it and any new statements must explain all related previous experimental results.

Theology is pseudo-science, because it is based on unquestioning faith and unreasonable assumptions. There is no reason to assume the existence of a god, becuase the world can be explained in much simpler terms which can also be verified experimentally. Just because there are topics that cannot be scientifically explained today it doesn't mean that we should throw away all the results of science. What would've happened if you showed the effects of radiation to a person in the 14th century? No amount of science at that time would've explained it for what it is. So was science bad then? Science was just as good (a lot weaker though), it was humankind that was ignorant.

Faith only works if you don't question the existence or the omnipotence of a god. It requires one to be ignorant of the world and do not ask questions, because once you do (and apply logic), you very quickly reach contradictions. Just because theology makes statements that some people accept, it doesn't mean that those statements have anything to do with reality.

I recommend for you guys to read the book "The End of Faith" from Sam Harris. It discusses problems with faith and religion (some statements are fairly harsh, too), but it does that in a very clear, logical fashion.

Even if you decide after reading it that it's crap, I think it's still has a lot of very valid points that should be considered when talking about religion. (I found it a very good book.)

Note that some chapters are written from a purely 2004 US American perspective, but most of the book applies generally and for the present/future.

You can try www.newgrounds.com.... they have a lot of free music on the site (it's actually free, not pirated.) Style-wise it may not work for you, but it's worth a look.

Working with doublebyte characters is a PITA. Unicode would be a lot better, since then it can represent all known characters.

Just out of curiosity: why would it be a big trouble adding Unicode support? (I assume it would, so correct me if I'm wrong. )

Left one, long arms and ProgZMax's chin.

Looking forward to the game.

Are there any limitations (size/colors)? If no, I might enter (depending on how much work I have.)

Hmmm... this is  hard one - both zyndikate's and nihilyst's are very good, in every aspect. I vote for zyndikate on this one, but nihilyst is very, very close. Fantastic work, you too!

I vote for Neil Dnuma. Nice image!

Windows is good if you like viruses, random crashes, and being Microsoft's idiot. Ah, and it has games too.

Not to start an argument about XP vs. Linux (I have both, but I only play with Linux every once in a while), but I find that a bit ignorant.

As much as I don't like MS, I haven't seen a Windows XP crash in the past 4 years and my computers are running 95% of the time, running high-end applications. In fact, I haven't seen a virus infection on the 10 XP computers that I manage at the office (one XP machine did become unusable several times, but the user there continously installed software from unknown sources, all the time, so it's not that suprising.) A properly managed XP is fairly solid. <knocks on wood > It's also true, that I normally reinstall my OS every 18 months or so (my own choice, not because I have to.)

InC,

Check if the processor in your machine overheats and verify that the hard drive is fine. It does sound like some kind of hardware problem. You might also have some kind of stealth virus - download Rootkit Revealer from www.sysinternals.com and run it. Let it run, don't use your computer during the search. Send me a PM if you need help in evaluating the report that it spits out.

If there is no hardware problem, I'd immediately start saving all data from the HDD and then reinstall the system and see if that helps. SSH is right, XP Home and XP Pro are the same, no need to go back to Pro, unless you actually need the extra features.

And if I were you, I'd install 2 copies of XP on two separate partitions and keep all your data on a separate third partition or on a separate hard drive. I wouldn't install Linux as a backup operating system, unless you're already very familiar with it - if your main OS goes down, you'll have more important problems than learning Linux to access your original data (not to mention file formats for which there is no Linux program to edit with.) And having XP as both the normal/backup OS lets you use NTFS on all partitions, which is a lot more secure and stable than FAT32. (I have nothing against Linux, but if you want to learn it, install it on yet another partition or under VmWare - that's what I have.)

When installing XP, do the following:
1. Install XP
2. Install SP2 (if not already included)
3. Install your apps
4. Install SP2 again
5. Download all updates from M$

You might want to use some of the other tools from SysInternals (AutoRuns and Process Explorer are very useful and they're free.)

Also, do regular (monthly or so) backups of your data to avoid the chance of loosing data.

HTH,
Traveler

traveler your cloud texture looks good, is that a bump map or an alpha texture?

Thank you very much!   There is a bump map on the planet and the clouds are in an alpha texture, which also have a bit of bumpiness assigned to it - the result is a combination of the two. (The atmospheric haze was done in Photoshop.)

I'm not sure if this is already known or not, but I got this exception when trying to add a GUI button:

---------------------------
Adventure Game Studio
---------------------------
An unexpected error occurred. Please note down the following information and contact CJ.

System.AccessViolationException: Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt.
   at drawGUIAt(Int32 , Int32 , Int32 , Int32 , Int32 , Int32 , Int32 , Int32 )
   at drawGUI(Int32 hdc, Int32 x, Int32 y, GUI guiObj, Int32 scaleFactor, Int32 selectedControl)
   at AGS.Native.NativeMethods.DrawGUI(Int32 hDC, Int32 x, Int32 y, GUI gui, Int32 scaleFactor, Int32 selectedControl)
   at AGS.Editor.GUIEditor.bgPanel_Paint(Object sender, PaintEventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnPaint(PaintEventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.PaintWithErrorHandling(PaintEventArgs e, Int16 layer, Boolean disposeEventArgs)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmPaint(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.ScrollableControl.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
---------------------------
OK   
---------------------------

This is what I did:

• Run the editor
• Right-click the GUIs node in the tree pane to the right and selected New GUI
• Clicked the "Add GUI button" button on the toolbar
• Dragged the button rectangle onto the GUI. The exception came when I released the mouse button. At this point the editor is still running but the control editor pane shows only a white background and a red X.

2267-11-23 Galactic Standard Calendar
Battle of New Earth in the 58 Eridani system.

It is widely believed that the Expansion War was triggered because of the intense opposition from the population against expansion and the Expansionist Alliance, but this is only partially true. The memoirs of Bander Allen clearly show that the hidden political agendas of some of the most powerful company leaders were at least partially responsible for the unrest and anger many felt at that time. These unscrupulous executives wanted...

Edit: uploaded a brighter version - the original looked way to dark on some monitors. It is still here.

I'm really sorry for for that - I hope your wife will be found in good health. I wanted to say something more here but I don't really know what to - there is no way I can truly understand what you feel. Do remain strong and don't give up hope.

I'm just bumping this to keep it on top for a while longer. (Moderators: I hope this is not against the rules - I just wanted to give potential candidates one more chance to see this before we turn to an agency.)

I also added a bit more detail to the first post.

This is paid work - I'm sorry for not mentioning this. It's not "my company", just the company where I work - I'm the lead engineer on this project. The reason I posted it here (even though it has nothing to do with AGS) is because there are a lot of talented people here who might be looking for work.

ProgZmax was quicker, but that was pretty much the reason I didn't write it's a commercial project. (And also because I'm tired.   <off to sleep>)

I agree and I didn't mean like an exact timing, down to the minutes , just something that gives an idea of speed. I'll have to be able to plan ahead and if the applying artists give a rough time with the image, it helps in interpolating how much time it'll take for that person to draw something of similar complexity.

I must be time-conscious, since we have a deadline that we have to keep - quality is very important but a even a breathtakingly beautiful image is worth nothing if it's done a week after the release date - we must be able to balance quality versus speed.