Messages

Main problem using pigeons: lots of dropped packets.
And it's vulnerable to a cat-in-the-middle attack.

Of course, you could create a nice P2P (pigeon-to-pigeon) network, given that you have enough seeds and the size of the swarm is sufficient.

When did I ever say anything about proving that 'god doesn't exist'?

[...] 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable [...]

You've stated here, that "God does not exists" is not provable. My response was only in regard of the unnecessarity of this claim being provable.

The lack of ability to prove the initial claim "God exists", seems for me to be a strong indication(not proof) that somebody invented it.

]Yes. This claim doesn't change any of the mechanisms of the cell and is therefore irrelevant to the mechanisms of the cell and to science, but as a scientists I answer you that: yes, I'd be agnostic towards that idea.

But it at least gives you an explanation of the origin of these mechanisms. And since it's a valid idea (and even complementary to the scientific belief) it should be included in textbooks, so that everybody who studies biology should know about it.

No, as shown in a previous post the 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable (let alone by means of science). As a result, both claims have to be marked as 'unknowns'; thus leading to agnosticism.

The fact that "God doesn't exist" can't be proven is totally irrevelant.
The earlier claim "God exists" (and that isn't a chicken or egg problem) isn't valid by any means. The following one only declines the earlier.

Let's say I'd propose the idea of very very tiny men living in every cell of our body, making the cell work.
But, they are so tiny, they can't be seen by anything that can possibly be invented.
Would you also be agnostic towards this idea?
Of course we can wait 2000 years, while in the meantime people kill each other over the dispute whether the colour of their hair is brown or red, or wheter the majority of them is called Frank or Pete. (And eventually George Lucas makes some shitty movies about them.)

However, according to Occam's razor (and I've been trained in using it quite a lot) the assumptions 'God exists; he was not invented by humans' and 'Humans invented god; he does not exist' contain exactly the same number of assumptions (and (currently) non-testable ideas). In other words: according to Occam's razor both concepts are equally likely and valid (which is also the agnostic view (and the view of most scientists that I've spoken to about this subject)).

I've always thought Occam's razor takes simplicity into account and not the sheer number of assumptions.
And assuming the existence of an unproven omnipotent, omniscient, omniwhatever being really doesn't scream simplicity.

Yet you clearly claimed several times throughout this thread that the second second assumption is more valid than the first; so that means that either you have to 'convert' to the agnostic view (which I would applaud), or need to have more proof (that you didn't mention) to move the scale towards the second assumption

Isn't "God exists" the initial unproven claim, neither verifiable nor falsifiable per definitionem?
Just dismissing something like that, seems completely valid to me.

Futhermore, do you really think both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true?
Because only in this case being agnostic would be justified.

Okay boys new version is up.
http://ledzepforever.googlepages.com/SecureFileTestV1_3.rar

Just adding QuitGame is a bit cheap.
http://ueberlicht.googlepages.com/CopyofHHGTG3.zip

(and no, fading-in instead of quitting is totally on purpose, and not a glitch caused by a quick and dirty crack  )

get ready for it!

And don't forget to bring cat food.

and become a psycho or something!!

If they don't share their advanced crop circle making technology, I'll definitely go postal. 


Some more shocking evidence from LASCO:

A fleet of alien spaceships:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2003/c3/20030912/20030912_2342_c3_512.jpg

Attack of the evil black squares, resulting in the disappearance of 1/3 of the universe:
http://soho.esac.esa.int/data/realtime/javagif/gifs/20071003_1642_c3.gif

Mmm, this SOHO shit is really interesting. I've never seen anything like it :/
http://soho.esac.esa.int/data/realtime/javagif/gifs/20090816_0318_c3.gif

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2003/c3/20030220/20030220_2342_c3_512.jpg
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2005/c3/20050814/20050814_1442_c3_512.jpg


Two possible explanations:
a) It's the Death Star.
b) LASCO uses digital cameras built in the early nineties.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com

SORRY - YOUR IP ADDRESS HAS BEEN BANNED -
[...]
we sometimes have to ban entire ISP Providers because of attacks on this website..

kind of funny...

I read them, and still don't know which one states that it's okay (or even good) to stone these people.

3.Mo 20:13 "If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

[...]since 0.000001 seconds after the big bang (the actual number is different but I'm too lazy to look it up). [...]

5.39124 * 10^−44 seconds.

The theorys are not equal because clearly they are mutually exclusive.

They are not equal, because one of them is a theory* and the other one is a fairy tale.

*in the scientific meaning of the word.

God could - and has - interfered in "mysterious ways" as the cliche goes [...]

Yeah, he could for example make weekly announcement. He wasn't that shy back in Old Testament days. But I figure, having your only son killed does that to you.

A debugger, basic knowledge of assembly and one bottle of beer.

Cracked.
Made the engine believe 'AbortGame' is 'IsButtonDown'.

Yeah, seems to be fixed.

But since it's not included in the current stable version or the latest beta, you have to use Minefield.

And you have to add:

Code: ags

img { image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; }  

to userContent.css, which is somewhere in your Profile folder.

Also, what role does the text-based lipsync actually play?

The recognition engine tries to construct/identify phrases which begin with that text. This should lead to better results.
For instance in my tests, the phrase "This is a test." was always recognized as "Jessica's antitrust" without text-based lipsync.

I then copied the pause into a separate sound file and let the lipsync tool analyze it, and it didn't find a single phoneme. I get the impression that it recognizes the preceding sound as the beginning of a specific word and then decides to "fill in the blank" following it.

Recognition doesn't work on a per-phoneme basis. It always tries to recognize words, and build a phrase out of them.
Are the other phonemes placed correctly? It's possible that the duration of the pause is included in the total duration of the phrase, which would mess up the position of the phonemes.


Your suggestions will be implemented in the next version.

It uses the same length for phonemes and a similar method for aligning them as the Annosoft program, the rest had to be rewritten.

.Net 3.0 only works on XP and Vista, which iirc have the Speech API already installed.

Edit: I ran a quick test on one of the samples I had also used with the old lipsync plugin, and it seems the new one doesn't handle pauses as well.

It should be similar if you check the "Add 'None' at the end of a recognized phrase" option.

[This plugin requires at least .Net 3.0!]

This plugin allows you to:
1) automatically create Pamela lip sync files from your speech files.
2) edit existing Pamela lip sync files.

This was part of my MediaManager plugin, but since the upcoming version 3.2 of AGS will make it pretty much obsolete, it's now starting its solo career.

Main difference:
Speech recognition is now written in C# instead of using an external tool, which lead to the following sentence:
This plugin requires at least .Net 3.0!
So XP (Vista comes with 3.0) users who haven't installed it already, please download it from here.

Download:
http://sites.google.com/site/infralicht/home/ags/AGS.Plugin.LipSync.zip
Unpack the content of the zip file to the editor folder.

Did you move the game folder?

If so:
1) make a backup of Game.agf
2) open Game.agf in a text editor
3) search for: <Folder Path
4) replace the old path with the new one. E.g.: "C:\OldGamePath\Music" -> "C:\NewGamePath\Music"
5) repeat step 3 till you reach the end of the file.
6) save the file

http://tinyurl.com/4euylp

I've uploaded a new version. Could you please check if that fixes it?

*bump for 1.0*

New feature:
You can now manage your video and flic files (hence the name change).
By default, the plugin searches the Compiled folder + subfolders for video files and the game folder for flics.

[not]

*bump for 0.7*

New feature:
Create and edit Pamela lipsync files. Futhermore, the plugin is now aware of .pam files and renames/deletes them if the corresponding speech file is renamed/deleted.

Creating Pamela files currently uses a third-party tool which uses Microsoft's Speech SDK, so if you're not running XP or Vista, you probably have to install Microsoft's Speech 5.1 Redistributables (speechsdk51msm.exe).