Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
16
Chrono Trigger Modification / Re: Temporal Flux Animation Reference Project
« on: August 15, 2006, 11:29:34 am »
The ability to edit some of the relatively-global functions ("Battle" comes to mind) would be handy
17
General Discussion / Re: Should we have a Welcome Board? (Please vote!)
« on: May 02, 2006, 08:36:11 am »
A "hello" board would serve a few purposes:
1) As stated, it gets all "hello" threads into one forum.
2) If we had one from the get go, it would easily rank at least in the middle of the pack (of all boards) in terms of activity. In other words, it will get used a significant amount.
3) It *invites* members to introduce themselves. This gives them an opportunity to establish their interests and objectives. If they provide implicit questions ("I want to be able to do blah blah blah"), someone can give them some pointers. If they join and establish they have a certain skill, they can be immediately recruited for one of our projects. If nothing else, it helps break the ice, which should increase the activity on our boards a bit (can't really say how much, though).
Besides, what harm is there in having a 24th public board when you already have 23?
1) As stated, it gets all "hello" threads into one forum.
2) If we had one from the get go, it would easily rank at least in the middle of the pack (of all boards) in terms of activity. In other words, it will get used a significant amount.
3) It *invites* members to introduce themselves. This gives them an opportunity to establish their interests and objectives. If they provide implicit questions ("I want to be able to do blah blah blah"), someone can give them some pointers. If they join and establish they have a certain skill, they can be immediately recruited for one of our projects. If nothing else, it helps break the ice, which should increase the activity on our boards a bit (can't really say how much, though).
Besides, what harm is there in having a 24th public board when you already have 23?
18
General Discussion / Re: The Battle of the "Hurt's"
« on: April 29, 2006, 03:31:04 am »
Some angst is unavoidable, but a lot would be prevented if culture wasn't so insincere, alienating, and manipulative. It would do everyone a lot of good if we didn't have to spend so much time cutting through the B.S. to achieve progress and understanding.
*raises, shakes fist*
See, we could dedicate a thread to angst if Zeal Palace was public.
*ducks*
*raises, shakes fist*
See, we could dedicate a thread to angst if Zeal Palace was public.
*ducks*
19
General Discussion / Re: The Battle of the "Hurt's"
« on: April 29, 2006, 02:04:29 am »
I vote for The Razor Skyline's version.
What?
Seriously, I'll choose NIN (based on the :30 sample of Cash's that's online).
What?
Seriously, I'll choose NIN (based on the :30 sample of Cash's that's online).
20
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 28, 2006, 07:40:49 am »
I'm sure if the board was made accessible to the public, then there would be something worth missing! (Hah, my logic is flawless!)
I feel your pain, Zeppelin.
I feel your pain, Zeppelin.
21
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 26, 2006, 04:45:04 am »Burning Z is just being anxious; you're not missing anything.
GameFAQs said the same thing about LUE, but it doesn't stop thousands of users from mulling over not getting to see it.
22
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 23, 2006, 06:55:22 pm »I believe a parents law should override that of the governments. Actually, that is totally stupid, but maybe the parents should take full responibility of the kid before puberty. That means giving the mother welfare and allowing them to skip work. This would probably encourage more mothers to give birth, and consequently, destroy the economy...ok that was a bad plan.
If kids are already in school (circa age 5½), then obviously you don't need a parent home during school hours.
I don't even think you necessary need the government to subsidize families in that way as much as you need to allow parents more flexibility in their work hours. A working-class parent can't take a job that works less than 40 hours (there are typically part-time jobs for 25-30 hours, but there are rarely any benefits, and there's no hope for promotion in them, so they are barely worth the effort) and salaries are often so shoddy that they have to take on a part time job as well anyway (*especially* if they are single parents, and the combination of long work-hours and just one guardian makes parenting impossible). Even "professionals" get squeezed in their own way; because they are "exempt," they can't demand a 40-hour job (for proportionally less pay). They get assigned whatever tasks the company dishes out, and that's usually a 50-60 hour a week gig (sometimes less, sometimes more). Part time jobs for professionals give some hope, but advancement is even harder for them, and the benefits/pay are less than proportionally less. Also, many workers have little or no control of *when* they do their work, and they often have to work at times that are much less convenient for them (usually resulting in unnecessary expenses or hardships).
It is actually a good idea to make our country more family friendly (despite all the restrictions put in place to "protect children," the economics are extremely biased against them; that's why parents are averaging fewer than 2 kids nowadays), but it doesn't necessary mean that the government has to foot the bill for *all* the changes. (Why is our population still growing then? People are living longer, and we are taking in a number of immigrants.)
23
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 22, 2006, 09:56:37 pm »
Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't work as long as "successful" people are content with having *on average* fewer than 2.1 spawn. Unless you "correct" this issue, it really doesn't matter (from a genetics point of view) what else you do.
24
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 22, 2006, 04:15:06 am »
When "items" in the game can sell for $861 (US) or so (which is a LOT to people who live in China), you have an obvious risk from the get-go (since proof goes out the window; your best hope is to record a demo of the transaction and take screenshots, and that's probably not enough for court anyway).
Obviously it would be unconstitutional to ban MMORPGs (of course, China can do whatever it wants; people don't have many rights there anyway), but it drives home the idea that these games can lead to a very uncomfortable way of life.
Obviously it would be unconstitutional to ban MMORPGs (of course, China can do whatever it wants; people don't have many rights there anyway), but it drives home the idea that these games can lead to a very uncomfortable way of life.
25
General Discussion / Re: Why must they always blame video games?!!
« on: April 22, 2006, 01:18:34 am »
Video games are typically restricted by ratings, so they aren't any more to blame than movies or TV.
There's other factors at play here, and you certainly can't blame just one (although perhaps not all either):
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because the government won't let them
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because they indulge themselves too much
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because their only parent (or both parents) work long weeks (50, 60, 70 hours, and sometimes have to drive a long way)
*) Parents don't provide enough for their kids, because they use it all on themselves
*) Parents can't provide enough for their kids because of unemployment or crappy wages
*) Parents discipline too much, and so their kids act out
*) Parents discipline violently, so their kids "punish" others violently
*) Parents act violently, so their kids follow in kind
*) Their peers act violently, so they follow in kind
*) Media (News, TV, Movies, Video Games) that parents aren't able to censor makes the kid aware of violence
*) Teachers and other faculty that don't respond to behavior appropriately (some will blame the "new age" school of thought while others blame the "old school" approach to problems)
*) Kids feel they have nothing to live for (which may or may not be rational), so they act out (potentially indiscriminately)
*) Drugs (media sometimes triggers this, but it's typically an emulated behavior from peers or parents) make kids do stupid things
*) Terrorism reinforces the idea that violence solves problems, by killing innocent people
*) The government reinforces the idea that violence solves problems, by going to war and torturing prisoners
*) Kids, like just about everyone else, are ignorant, selfish, hateful
I could go on.
There's other factors at play here, and you certainly can't blame just one (although perhaps not all either):
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because the government won't let them
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because they indulge themselves too much
*) Parents don't discipline enough, because their only parent (or both parents) work long weeks (50, 60, 70 hours, and sometimes have to drive a long way)
*) Parents don't provide enough for their kids, because they use it all on themselves
*) Parents can't provide enough for their kids because of unemployment or crappy wages
*) Parents discipline too much, and so their kids act out
*) Parents discipline violently, so their kids "punish" others violently
*) Parents act violently, so their kids follow in kind
*) Their peers act violently, so they follow in kind
*) Media (News, TV, Movies, Video Games) that parents aren't able to censor makes the kid aware of violence
*) Teachers and other faculty that don't respond to behavior appropriately (some will blame the "new age" school of thought while others blame the "old school" approach to problems)
*) Kids feel they have nothing to live for (which may or may not be rational), so they act out (potentially indiscriminately)
*) Drugs (media sometimes triggers this, but it's typically an emulated behavior from peers or parents) make kids do stupid things
*) Terrorism reinforces the idea that violence solves problems, by killing innocent people
*) The government reinforces the idea that violence solves problems, by going to war and torturing prisoners
*) Kids, like just about everyone else, are ignorant, selfish, hateful
I could go on.
26
General Discussion / Re: A challenge to the religious
« on: April 20, 2006, 02:44:59 am »
Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded. Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate. That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).
However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation). Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?
Thanks for your time.
However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation). Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?
Thanks for your time.
27
General Discussion / A challenge to the religious
« on: April 17, 2006, 05:50:03 pm »Quote from: Sentenal
While I guess that is a reasonable interpertation for those who refuse to believe in the Resurrection
The issue isn't a matter of refusing to believe it, because that would suggest that the evidence is unquestionably compelling. Witnesses and investigations were far less sophisticated 2000 years ago, and something that appears as a miracle at the time may have some rational explanation according to today's standard (medically or logistically speaking). People at the time were generally uneducated, and science was essentially nonexistent, so they would be susceptible to making various kinds of errors. Furthermore, it's notable that the Bible does not always differentiate between what's story and what is fact, and often the Church has interpreted certain sections to be stories only after scientific evidence has disproven their validity on a literal level (and even then, the Church is still often slow to concede those points).
You may feel the evidence is there, but my experiences in life compel me to question *any* so-called "miracles" ("Oh, he was given only a one in a hundred chance of surviving; it must have been God intervening for us." Well, when you've got a hundred such people, you expect ninety-nine to die, and one to survive, so that one was simply the lucky winner. Nevermind that there are people given a ninety-nine percent chance of surviving but end of dying, and certainly many of those are "good" people). Some people will beat the odds, sometimes odds that are unforseen, and this doesn't even begin to address issues of mistaken identity, exaggeration (in the "heroic" sense), fabrication, story-telling, whatever.
I reject things that are either evil or non-existent: Satan, etc...
I neither deny nor accept things that could be good or non-existent: All the "good" mysteries of religion
Accept things that are good and believable: The philosophy that seems appropriate to apply to my life.
Quote
QuoteThe Bible isn't totally corrupted, though many Christian scholars and priests misinteperet it, and give off their version of the teachings as the right one. The Pope, anyone?
Agreed, which is a problem with nearly all religions, unfortunately.
When you put it that way, the best solution would seem to be to trust no religion, or to least trust your own judgement once you've given all angles a fair shake. Don't show preference to a religion just because by accident of birth it got a foot in the door.
28
General Discussion / A challenge to the religious
« on: April 17, 2006, 01:34:41 am »Quote from: Sentenal
Well, guys, just what do you believe has been changed about it? Are you going to assume that since some of it is different from its original form, that all of it has been change? Are you going to assume that it was all just made up in the middle ages?
It's going to be hard to tell what actually is fabricated, so if you're investing yourself into the Bible in a literal sense, you are rolling the dice pretty much any time you integrate anything new.
That said, the main problem with the Bible isn't a case of people making things up. Rather, it's people misinterpreting the events going on around them, and particularly in the case of the Old Testament, certain legends will also be made grander and grander as they are passed down from generation to generation until they are eventually recorded in some reasonably-permanent way. In the case of a latter, it's not a deception, but people naturally envisioning these stories to entail greater heroism over time. It's really a matter of people behaving reasonably but still screwing things up. Or maybe they are just supposed to be embellished stories, and we're the ones messing up by taking them word-for-word.
Quote from: Sentenal
Regardless of minor changes throughout the bible, the main message is constant, and has not been changed; Jesus is the Son of God, came to Earth, died, and rose agian to save us from our sin. And that is the most important message the bible gives, regardless of any other changes, that has remained constant.
It takes a considerable leap of faith to believe in the resurrection happening, at least in a literal sense. As such, it can realistically that message may be true, but it may be so in a symbolic sense (at least with minimal restructuring). Jesus (who, at a minimum, is a brilliant prophet, particularly for his time) "saves" us from our sins by serving as a spectular example and teacher of the right way for us to live our lives, at least relative to the problems of the day. Even though he dies, his commitment to those values (even to death) shows us that these *are* principles/ideas worth dying for, and this love moves us to do the same. His sacrifice gives us the courage and understanding to stand for what is right, just, and merciful, even when it is at odds with tradition. In fact, we who take his message to heart *are* the resurrection.
You don't necessarily have to believe my interpretation, but it's certainly compelling.
29
General Discussion / A challenge to the religious
« on: April 15, 2006, 03:06:14 pm »
Just about any religious text is a corrupt document. It's already documented that the New Testament was changed during translations (including adding the "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story; it's a great summary of some of Jesus's teachings, but it wasn't initially there and probably never happened), and you have to imagine that the Old Testament is going to be even worse (when people were even less educated and perceptive of the things around them, or were prone to fabricate details and possibly entire stories; for example, it's pretty absurd to suggest that people towards the beginning of the Bible's history used to live for several hundred years).
Regarding the article that was linked in the first post, it's a compelling argument, but there are some details that it does not give justice:
1) Regarding Argument #2, when people prove themselves to be "good" or "evil," the reality is that pretty much everyone will be neither perfectly good or perfectly evil. It seems to be a bit weak to suggest that someone who is typically good but fails to excercise good judgement a few times is necessarily damned to Hell (as the word "purgatory" never shows up in that essay).
2) Regarding Argument #3, a just God doesn't necessary have to intervene to punish evildoers on this plane of existence. Besides, a God not doing so forces us to be proactive in protecting ourselves and administering justice (of course, this is an imperfect art) and keeps us from being lazy. But if there's a God, it may simply be a matter of its power not being placed in this domain; it's relevance may only come into play in an afterlife.
3) This point concerns Argument #3, and it ties into my opening rant as well, but if there's a God, it may very well have nothing to much if any of what is said in the Bible. The God that asked Abraham to kill his son may be a false God, although that doesn't necessarily mean this is the same God that was observed in any other given part of the Bible.
4) Regarding Argument #4, there will be a lot of moral people who will be willing to test their faith, but even if the "right" conclusion is to conclude there is no God, they simply lack the luxury of time to properly assess and shape their values to come to that conclusion. If they work long hours and/or die young (or lack a good education), well-meaning people may simply not get that opportunity, and it's not necessarily their fault. Of course, more is expected of those with more idle time (ironically, we at least see the merit of the idea that it's easier for a camel to fit through a needle's eye than for a rich person to get into heaven).
I suppose I'm still an agnostic as the article suggests I am supposed to be if I am to be good, but the reasoning I take is a bit different. The article concludes directly that there's no credible evidence for a just God, but there's a point to be argued first. It's that the number of questionably moral things God does (or is said to have done), plus a number of other logical/situational absurdities, invalidates the Bible as a document to be taken literally. The same can be said for really any other major religious document/compilation, so it would *then* follow that there probably isn't a just God, because there's no credible evidence of there being one (since all documents supporting that notion can be proved flawed, at least in a literal sense).
But this doesn't keep believers out. It's naive to think that all just people should come to the same conclusion, because they are exposed to different stimuli and are placed under different constraints as we are. Besides, the important thing isn't us judging others regarding whether they would get into heaven (if there is one), but for us to show the love, compassion, and understanding that we ought to be showing (not in order to get into heaven, but because we want to), which in turn should help them do the same as they become stronger.
Regarding the article that was linked in the first post, it's a compelling argument, but there are some details that it does not give justice:
1) Regarding Argument #2, when people prove themselves to be "good" or "evil," the reality is that pretty much everyone will be neither perfectly good or perfectly evil. It seems to be a bit weak to suggest that someone who is typically good but fails to excercise good judgement a few times is necessarily damned to Hell (as the word "purgatory" never shows up in that essay).
2) Regarding Argument #3, a just God doesn't necessary have to intervene to punish evildoers on this plane of existence. Besides, a God not doing so forces us to be proactive in protecting ourselves and administering justice (of course, this is an imperfect art) and keeps us from being lazy. But if there's a God, it may simply be a matter of its power not being placed in this domain; it's relevance may only come into play in an afterlife.
3) This point concerns Argument #3, and it ties into my opening rant as well, but if there's a God, it may very well have nothing to much if any of what is said in the Bible. The God that asked Abraham to kill his son may be a false God, although that doesn't necessarily mean this is the same God that was observed in any other given part of the Bible.
4) Regarding Argument #4, there will be a lot of moral people who will be willing to test their faith, but even if the "right" conclusion is to conclude there is no God, they simply lack the luxury of time to properly assess and shape their values to come to that conclusion. If they work long hours and/or die young (or lack a good education), well-meaning people may simply not get that opportunity, and it's not necessarily their fault. Of course, more is expected of those with more idle time (ironically, we at least see the merit of the idea that it's easier for a camel to fit through a needle's eye than for a rich person to get into heaven).
I suppose I'm still an agnostic as the article suggests I am supposed to be if I am to be good, but the reasoning I take is a bit different. The article concludes directly that there's no credible evidence for a just God, but there's a point to be argued first. It's that the number of questionably moral things God does (or is said to have done), plus a number of other logical/situational absurdities, invalidates the Bible as a document to be taken literally. The same can be said for really any other major religious document/compilation, so it would *then* follow that there probably isn't a just God, because there's no credible evidence of there being one (since all documents supporting that notion can be proved flawed, at least in a literal sense).
But this doesn't keep believers out. It's naive to think that all just people should come to the same conclusion, because they are exposed to different stimuli and are placed under different constraints as we are. Besides, the important thing isn't us judging others regarding whether they would get into heaven (if there is one), but for us to show the love, compassion, and understanding that we ought to be showing (not in order to get into heaven, but because we want to), which in turn should help them do the same as they become stronger.
30
Chrono Trigger Modification / Crimson Echoes
« on: April 13, 2006, 03:46:31 pm »
I don't know much about Crimson Echoes, but the question I would ask is: "How complete is the project?" If it's no more than a quarter done, I think those involved need to seriously accept the reality that even if the interest doesn't fade, it'll be years before you/they finish. Is this a project you are willing to commit that much time to, considering it may gobble up six of your remaining sixty years on this rock? Is the project important enough, and will it make enough of an impression on those who play it? Keep in mind that since you are using Chrono Trigger media, this "game" can only be played by those who have a copy of the CT ROM, so your audience will be limited from the get-go.
If you are farther along but not halfway, then perhaps a salvage is in order. I don't know what that would entail, but if you really wanted to keep things open for completing the whole project, you could break your game up into two or three "episodes," and then you release a new update each time you release a new episode.
If you are past that point in content development, then you can very well go forward, but I find it terribly unlikely that CE is that far along.
...
Contests are, erm, okay, but without proper documentation, you're going to see poor participation. Even though TF is extremely powerful, there just aren't that many people who have used TF with much success. Part of this has to do with the difficulty of learning the programming side of things, but more of it has to do with there not being many Chrono Trigger hackers to begin with.
Certainly, one should not stake a project's success on a contest. If you don't think you can't get it done without one, then odds are you can't get it done.
If you are farther along but not halfway, then perhaps a salvage is in order. I don't know what that would entail, but if you really wanted to keep things open for completing the whole project, you could break your game up into two or three "episodes," and then you release a new update each time you release a new episode.
If you are past that point in content development, then you can very well go forward, but I find it terribly unlikely that CE is that far along.
...
Contests are, erm, okay, but without proper documentation, you're going to see poor participation. Even though TF is extremely powerful, there just aren't that many people who have used TF with much success. Part of this has to do with the difficulty of learning the programming side of things, but more of it has to do with there not being many Chrono Trigger hackers to begin with.
Certainly, one should not stake a project's success on a contest. If you don't think you can't get it done without one, then odds are you can't get it done.