Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
stanski wrote:
Why were any of these ever accepted?
VANDAL wrote:
this game is repetitive and really doesn't deserve much attention in the sense that it's not very entertaining.
Pretty much sums up my feelings about this game. Having twice as many of the boring events makes this less entertaining for me than adelikat's run, simply because it goes longer. So this one gets a no from me.
However, if this run does get published, I would hope that adelikat's run doesn't, so that we don't go from 3 movies of the same crappy game, to 2 (slightly less crappy) movies of the same crappy game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I like the idea of further segregation of games, but I have a feeling it will simply breed further arguments about why one movie is published under a certain section, or the idea of dual obsoletion. Say that a movie comes along that accomplishes all of the goals of the "entertainment" run, but also does it faster that the current published "any%" run. Does the movie show up in both sections now, or would the entertainment run be deleted until some other, newer goal is accomplished?
I also have a feeling that the current movies would be split up into 70% speed (duh), 20% entertainment (several of the games in the Concept demos section right now, along with most fighting games), and 10% that would kick up quite a bit of discussion (100% games, especially Super Metroid, come to mind... do they primarily aim for entertainment because they go for more items, or is it primarily speed with a secondary goal?)
Again, I'd like to see a little bit of overhaul to the classification, but I don't know if it will cause more problems than it solves.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
FODA wrote:
That was a Wii 51-states-not-taught-on-brazilian-first-grades-or-any-grades-whatever.
I might get a junk laptop in two months if luck strikes my pockets.
My apologies FODA, I meant first graders here in the US of America. I know that I knew as much about Brazil when I was in first grade as you knew of the US when you were 1st grade. Oh, and good luck w/ the laptop, and with a little more luck it will hopefully not be junk!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Um, last I checked Guam was also, so that would make 52. Or, we can assume it was a freaking typo and there really are just 50 states here like any 1st grader knows.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Thanks for doing this JXQ, one shot that I've always thought looked horrible was Gex 64, it's incredibly dark. I was unsure if I should even mention it because I don't want to turn this into a thread where people just complain about screenshots that they don't like, but you can't see anything that's going on for Gex.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Excellent job w/ Corneria Meepers! I was thoroughly impressed throughout. Didn't watch yours yet CF, but I will tomorrow to see what's different. Keep up the good work.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
LagDotCom wrote:
Or is humanity too greedy by nature?
Bingo. 99% of the community could work together in peace and community support, however that 1% could easily ruin it. And think of 100 people you know. If there isn't at least 1 that is greedy or thinks that the world revolves around them, you have been very lucky so far in life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I don't think that passivity has a direct connection to religion. I think it is somewhat human nature to chose inaction when faced with a question with no right answer. Letting a runaway bus kill any number of people has no direct accountability for an observer, whereas killing one person to save those people has a very specific amount of accountability. Whether a person chooses the theoretical right choice or not may be swayed by their fear of repercussion for the action with more direct accountability.
Edit: Hooray for being an active player now.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Thank you for that post xebra, very interesting stuff about the mosquitoes.
And while I still believe that homosexuality is somewhat affected by upbringing and/or environment, you and various others have shed some light on the genetics component for me. Thanks.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
upthorn wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
In an evolutionary sense, can you agree that having one gene coded to not replicate should die out eventually?
Not if it's double-recessive and only becomes activated in overpopulated environments.
True, but only if it exists in a true dominant-recessive relationship. Almost all genes, however, have different levels of dominance and recessiveness, like hair color (ie black, brown, red, blond, etc), or expression (like skin color). Blond hair is not simply the lack of a black hair gene, it is the most recessive of the bunch. So if this one "homo gene" as xebra calls it does exist as a simple dominant-recessive expression (either you have two of the gene and you're gay, or you have one or none and you're not), then it is possible to say it wouldn't die out due to 3/4 of the population having at least one recessive gene. I guess you could argue that it maybe has different levels of expression, so bisexuals just have less expressed homosexuality, but I don't know of any theories about that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I don't know why you chose to quote bible quotes at the end of your post, I never brought religion into this. And I never said that genetics didn't have something to do with someone's sexual preference, my question had to do with people who believe it is ENTIRELY based on genetics. I do know about recessive genes, co-dominance, hidden and expressed alleles, etc., but perhaps my original question was too vague.
As a very obvious atheist, I can assume you support the theory of evolution. So in an evolutionary sense, can you agree that having one gene coded to not replicate should die out eventually? Tell me how this doesn't make sense.
You make a good point about different combinations of genes having different effects on some people (similar to sickle cell anemia being resistant against malaria).
I could really care less what sexual orientation a person is, whether it is due to a choice, environment, genetics, upbringing, or (as I believe) a combination of all these things. It doesn't bother me. The fact that you use derogatory phrases as descriptors tells me enough about your stance on it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
xebra wrote:
English isn't your first language, so you are forgiven for not knowing exactly what fanatic means: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics."
No matter what you claim, an anti-religious fanatic is exactly what you come off as. We get it. You're an atheist. You hate God, or don't believe in him, or hate others who believe in him. Enough already. It's old and played out. So just drop it. I find your other posts intelligent and well thought out, but for the sake of your reputation, quit trying to pick fights and go back to being the xebra people like to talk to and listen to.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I've used the Mupen port for OSX, but I've never had any luck with getting much to work with it, unfortunately. Sixtyforce has always worked better for playing for me. And I don't think that anyone has made a port of the rerecording version of Mupen to OSX, although there may be one floating around somewhere. Your best bet, if you have an intel mac, is to get parallels or boot camp and just run the emulators in a windows front end. If you're like me and have one of the last G5s, you're kinda out of luck.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well it desynched for me when you get the adult wallet (which I seem to remember was a favorite place for it to desynch during the WIPs), so I'll wait to see what the encoding looks like. However for what I did see, it was excellent, great job Mukki!. And good luck to Bisqwit, encoding this is sure not an easy task. ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I have a strong sense in biology and science, so this question is coming from that standpoint: How is it that people believe a person can be inherently born with homosexuality?
As pointed out in one of these ask me threads, the meaning of life from a biology standpoint is to reproduce. If there is a gene or trait passed down from parent to offspring that codes for the desire to only be with the same sex, wouldn't that child never reproduce, thus ending the genes existence? I understand in the past (and to a certain extent today) that social influences may have pushed someone who "felt" like they were supposed to be gay into heterosexual relationships. But with today's somewhat more accepting stance on the issue, if homosexuality is biologically driven, shouldn't we see the trait or gene die out due to it's inherent inability to reproduce?
