Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
A small improvement could probably be made on Train by using the RCP + hand laser combination at the end. I used ZMG + hand laser, but RCP is faster and more powerful, so it would probably save some time, even though it may take a few frames to pick up.
Got this idea from watching this old WR video from 1998: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbRi6_7HkUU
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Niamek wrote:
You must have a ton of bookmarks... Just curious, how many do you have?
3100. And if I remember correctly, the most tabs I had open at one time was 800-900. But I didn't start this "bookmarking all tabs" thing until a couple of months ago, so earlier when I hit 500 tabs, I just said f#¤k it and closed everything.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Patashu wrote:
So figure out how you want to prioritize your time, and (sadly) throw away everything else, or save it to some long term storage (like a text or word document). It's easier said than done of course.
Well, it only takes a couple of clicks for me to save all tabs using the "bookmark all tabs", so it's almost easier done than said.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
creaothceann wrote:
You just open links in new tabs and keep them open to read them later. It's like having bookmarks, except
- you don't have to save the links as bookmarks
- the pages don't interfere with your actual (long-term) bookmarks
- you don't have to remove the pages from your bookmarks when you're done with them
My tabs seem to be at least 90% from youtube. I'm subscribed to several channels, and since I only watch 1-2 hours per day, new interesting videos come out faster than I can watch them. Eventually I end up with 500 tabs, which starts slowing down Firefox, so I end up having to bookmark all those tabs (lol), and I never have time to watch all those videos or websites, but I save them anyway. Maybe if Ray Kurzweil is right, in a few decades we can extend our lifespan to a 1000 years and speed up our brains, so that we can absorb information faster, lol.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
creaothceann wrote:
I would consider Chrome only if there's something comparable to Tree Style Tab.
Yeah, that's a really useful addon. With 500 tabs open, it becomes hard to navigate and find the tabs you're looking for, so that's when I had to google for a solution, and I found Tree Style Tab. But another problem with Chrome is that it uses insane amounts of RAM, which is why I wouldn't use it even if it had a Tree Style Tab. I need at least 200 tabs open. Too bad that even Firefox start to slow down at 400 tabs.
Also the "stop youtube" addon or whatever it is, which always starts youtube videos stopped is one of the most useful addons. I also have "Deduplicate tabs closer", to close duplicate tabs.
Yes, it freezes at the frame 4450 or so. With the default settings, Bizhawk actually crashes instantly when I load the game, but when I switched to Glide64mk2, then it at least starts the game, but freezes later.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
feos wrote:
nfq, have you tried it on mupen+ itself?
I tried it with this: http://m64py.sourceforge.net/
It works, but it has no TAS tools.
I guess there is a newer mupen [1] that has a command line interface, but I haven't tried that because I suck at command lines.
[1] http://mupen64plus.org/
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I made some falling markkoja and a glass ball that shatters in Blender 3D:
Link to video
Hadn't tried the physics engine before. You can do cool stuff with the program, but it's hard to use: http://i.imgur.com/jMDjcRM.png
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Jobs are overrated. Let's just create a communist, post-scarcity or "resource based economy" society so that no one has to work, and everybody can do TASes. Capitalism destroys TASing and hobbies, because everybody has to work for income, even though the robots are doing most of the jobs, so politicians have to invent pretend-jobs where people roll their thumbs or some other meaningless waste of time/life.
But since moozooh lives in Russia, maybe you have some first-hand experience and knowledge about communism and can tell us if it's a dream or a nightmare.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
OmniPotentEntity wrote:
But irrespective of that point, the assertion that a finite "everything" is illogical doesn't seem well supported. Why must there be something "outside" that "limits" it?
Because there is no other way of making an object finite, than by separating it from something else. There is no evidence or logical way for an object to be finite and at the same time without having some kind of borders/limits. It's completely illogical, but people believe any foolish thing just because scientists/authorities say so.
We are used to dealing with finite "everything" in daily life. For instance, this is everything in my room. This is everything in my house. This is everything on the surface of planet Earth. "Room", "House", "Earth" are valid categories for describing a set of things, why is not "Universe" also valid?
The universe means absolutely everything, unlike a house, which is limited. There is not "everything" in your house, because your house doesn't contain the universe.
I guess my major problem with this statement is twofold.
1) It is a bare assertion.
2) It assumes what you are attempting to prove (that free will exists.)
Just like it's a bare assertion that "natural laws" exist and control the universe. Like I said, it depends on if you want to believe that death or life rules the universe. Your choice.
This is also a bare assertion.
It's not, because it's demonstrable. You can use your willpower to move your body.
"Dead" and "Not Alive" are two different concepts. A corpse is dead. A rock is simply not alive. You asserted that the laws of nature were "dead." And you made a rather large deal out of it, as I recall. Calling it a "deathforce" instead of a "lifeforce." Or something similarly outrageous.
Even though they are slightly different concepts, the point is that in the mind, people still equate them, which leads to the worship of death and materialism.
For the record, most concepts of the Christian God of the Bible also do not fit the scientific definition of life. As the Christian God, as a supernatural being, presumably does not metabolize.
That's true, but that's because like I said: science defines death as life, and life as death. So obviously it would define God as dead. Science is all about death worship, trust me.
In reality though, the supernatural is obviously life, because if the natural didn't have anything superior that controlled it, it wouldn't be able to do anything.
Sure I can. Humans are composed of particles, like atoms, that individually do not have life. However, in aggregate, because they perform tasks such as metabolism, signaling, etc, the sum total of these interactions can be considered life.
Sure, you can believe that, but that's a completely arbitrary definition of life, which has nothing to do with the reality of life. I mean, why would "performing certain tasks" make something alive? Just because some scientists decided so. They have no evidence that those tasks actually makes it alive. They just arbitrarily decided that that is "life". And by doing that, they reduced life into death, in the minds of those fooled by them.
This reads like a word salad, frankly. :/ It's also patently untrue when taken at face value.
No, think about it. Dead particles came together by natural laws and the dead sun created "life" on earth. Death is the giver of life according to science. And lifeforms are composed of dead particles called atoms, and there is no free will, no meaning in life and everything is pointless according to science. That's why many people become depressed and want to kill themselves when they learn these things about science in school. I've read many times about teenagers who think they are just "meat machines", and there is no free will, no morals, and everything is just random, which makes them very unstable.
I think the point is that science and technology sucks. Think about it. It's no coincidence that feminism starts the same time as the industrial revolution. Same with muslims. The reason they are invading Europe is also because of science and technology. Science destroyed Christianity with knowledge, so the religious firewall of Europe is down, free to be invaded. Then of course all the fast and easy transportation devices invented by science makes invasion very easy.
I could go on and on, with science and technology polluting the environment, the atomic bomb, obesity epidemic, food additives, abortions, hormonal imbalances, technologically caused laziness, antisocial behavior, whoreish behavior, STDs, eating disorders, identity disorders, depression, socialism, communism, guns etc. All caused by scientific progress in some way.
Soon the terminator robots from your avatar are coming too, thanks to science and progress in artificial intelligence. Not only will they take over, but humans will also make themselves into robots, just like your avatar shows. Ray Kurzweil and many others have said it. Trust me. I will also turn into a cyborg, like you can see in my avatar. I won't join the luddites who are against science and technology, the bringer of light/electricity, Lucifer.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
OmniPotentEntity wrote:
This doesn't follow. Are you claiming that either the future is infinite or that the universe is infinite? If so, on what basis?
There are infinite things to know, because every new answer gives rise to another question. Behind every effect in the universe is another cause, because of the law of cause and effect.
And of course the universe/everything and future are infinite too. A finite "everything" would be illogical, because then there would have to be something outside that limits it. The future can't be finite because things can't stop existing, for example because of the first law in thermodynamics.
What does this have to do with free will?
Lifeforms have less free will, the less complex they are.
Predictable behavior in nature and of nature, yes. Are you suggesting that humans are not naturally occurring beings?
Free will and consciousness are supernatural, because we can control nature (our body for example) using consciousness.
In what sense are they dead? In the same sense as a rock is dead? In the same sense as an idea is dead?
The way they are defined, and the way science defines life, the laws of nature are obviously not alive.
Will and life are two different terms with two different meanings. You're intentionally conflating them. Do you have anything to back up these assertions?
Obviously you can't say that humans or anything is alive if they are composed of particles, like atoms, which are completely dead according to science. And on top of that, everything is controlled by laws which have no willpower, they just do things for no reason, lol.
Science defines life as death and death as life. In science, death is the giver of life, and life is just dead matter.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Nach wrote:
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
Sure, if we were all-knowing, we could determine very accurately what happens in the future, but nobody knows everything because infinity can't be known.
I have a hard time believing humans have free will, let alone minute particles that cannot be subdivided further. If we then postulate those particles have free will to do whatever, why aren't very strange things happening occasionally?
The less consciousness a life form has and the less complex its body is, the less it can express itself. That's why humans, insects and particles behave differently.
What makes "physical laws" more believable than free will? A physical law is just a concept created by humans to describe predictable behavior in nature. Just because it's predictable doesn't mean it's controlled by something else than willpower. Unlike physical laws, willpower is something we all have experience of, so it's something everybody knows is real, unless they are educated/indoctrinated out of that knowledge.
The reason people nowadays believe in the laws of nature instead of the laws/wills of God, is because people worship nature (materialism) instead of God.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm a devil worshiper (slave of material desires), like the rest of humanity, so I'm not any better, but I know that the world is controlled by lifeforce instead of deathforce (The "laws of nature" are dead. They are not alive). So it all depends on if you think death is God, or if you think Life is God. Which is the creator/preserver of everything?
If the laws of physics rule, then death rules. That belief system renders everything, including humans, dead, because everything is controlled by the laws of physics, and nothing has will/life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Bisqwit wrote:
I believe that I am making all my choices myself, and I am free to do it just as I please.
But I also believe that to a high enough intelligence, I am utterly predictable, and any cleverness or uniqueness I think I produce, is merely me exhibiting my typical predictable behavior patterns over and over again. Sometimes I can even glimpse this happening, but other times it eludes me.
This is how I reconcile the fact that we as humans have free will, with the concept that God is omniscient and knows things far in the future before they happen. I understand that not only is God smarter than we are, he is so much smarter than we are that we can't even comprehend the magnitude of the difference, much like a cat cannot possibly comprehend the extent of the difference between mental faculties of a cat and the mental faculties of a human. A cat can only be vaguely aware that the human is better at solving some problems (like opening a door) than they are, but they can never hope to comprehend the extent of the difference between the complexities of thought processes. Even a less intelligent man (or a child) cannot understand the difference between the cognition of a more intelligent man (or an adult) and themselves.
(Disclaimer: In this thought process, I am treating intelligence and wisdom synonymous.)
It isn't really free will though, if it's just something you believe you have. It's just an illusion then. And this brings up the classic argument, that God has then chosen from the very beginning which people go to hell (which the Bible also says), and satan in the garden was part of his plan too, and nobody has real free will. They only think they have.
Some Christians counter this argument by comparing God to a time traveller, but it's not the same thing, because a time traveller is not the creator of everything, so obviously he doesn't determine the actions of people, even if he would know them.
This is how to reconcile it:
God/universe knows everything we're going to do, because it has free will. When I choose to snap my fingers, the "I am" within me determined me to do that, and that pre-determination is free will. If I didn't determine what I'm going to do, my actions would be just random. They wouldn't be free. Determinism is the same thing as free will. They're just a false dichotomy.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
fcxiaopengyou wrote:
How to improve my English?
By using it more. By writing, reading, listening, talking and watching videos.
But I think we should try to avoid using English too much, because it's destroying the world, by affecting and destroying other languages and cultures by becoming too international.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
The problem with feminism is that it refuses to acknowledge that we are a dimorphic species.
There are radical feminists who think that even biological sex is a social construct [1] [2], but generally feminists accept that we are dimorphic biologically speaking. But they think that our gender identity and such is formed by "society", and our brain, mind, body and their interactions has little, if anything, to do with gender identity.
Many feminists reject objective knowledge and the traditional definition of science, because feminism has its roots in critical theory (a neo-Marxist philosophy), which says that objective knowledge is impossible [3]. There are even things like "the feminist method". Maybe we'll have that in the future instead of the scientific method.
[1] http://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtsHv7iUZSE
[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/ ("On the basis of Habermasian premises, indeed, there can be no objective knowledge, as positivists claim, detached from intersubjective forms of understanding. Since knowledge is strictly embedded in serving human interests, it follows that it cannot be considered value-neutral and objectively independent.")
See also: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Patashu wrote:
It notes that women are both less likely to negotiate for pay rises AND more likely to be penalized if they do, that the wage gap doesn't disappear if you control for education level, and that if you control for things like hours worked/years experience/marital status and so on, the wage gap STILL doesn't disappear. Studies like this support the wage gap being a real thing, and not just an artifact of how we measure it.
Maybe one reason the wage gap exists is because women can still get a man very easily who takes care of her financially, so jobs still aren't as important as they are for men. But they are of course more important than in the 1800s, when women didn't need to work outside the home or educate themselves.
But when you think about it, it's pretty sexist that in the 1800s men had to do all the work and education, and women could just be at home and take care of the children. Not saying that there's necessarily anything wrong with sexism. Sexism just means that men and women have different roles in society. How different those roles should be depends on how much technological progress has erased the differences between genders/sexes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
arandomgameTASer wrote:
How is discrimination in any form or way fair, natural, and understandable?
Because people are naturally different, you can't always treat everyone the same. If you would treat everyone the same, it wouldn't be fair, because a pedophile for example would get a job at a daycare.
Plus it's not like every single person who happens to be a woman is also pregnant.
Right, but there's the possibility.
Do you have proof of this? Like a website link or something to support your claim?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Patashu wrote:
When a resume is submitted for a job application, if the resume is otherwise identical but the name is male, they are more likely to be accepted and offered a higher starting salary ( http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf )
Women have natural limitations, such as pregnancy, which is one reason they are less likely to get jobs. It's discrimination, but it's fair, natural and understandable. But it also depends a lot on what kind of job it is. If you apply for a job as a cashier, you're more likely to get the job if you're a woman, because stores want pretty faces in their stores. It's discrimination, but it's fair and understandable. Men and women have different bodies, which have advantages and disadvantages.
It's not natural for women to do manly jobs in the first place, because women should be at home taking care of children. But today we live in an unnatural world, because of technology, so that has changed things, forever. The same rules don't apply anymore. So many children today become disturbed, like the Joker, because they don't have enough connection to their mother and father, because we don't live naturally anymore. But there's no turning back now.
In addition, which gender commits suicide the most seems to have cultural roots. In China it's actually women who commit suicide more.
Yeah, China is a strange country. Naturally/generally men commit more suicides, but China has adopted unnatural practices like the one-child-policy, which leads to more female suicides. Also unfair discrimination against women and the gender imbalance contributes to that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
andypanther wrote:
Do you really want reduce all differences between men and women to something purely biological? Don't you think society has an influence? When people tell me "almost all great inventions were done by men", I ask them if women really ever got the same chance to make those inventions. Because I don't think that's the case.
It's true that women didn't have the chance to contribute to those inventions, because women had a different role back then, because the inventions didn't exist yet. It was all the inventions and technology which made it possible for both men and women to be freed from our natural gender roles.
But of course, there are also biological and mental differences between men and women, which prevent men and women from doing/achieving the same things. But technology blurs those differences more and more all the time too. Even biological sex isn't entirely fixed anymore, because it can be changed through hormones and surgery. As technology progresses, I think the differences will become even fuzzier.
(It goes beyond gender too, because technology blurs the differences between nations, cultures, languages, races, classes, biological and machine etc. but that's another story.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
RGamma wrote:
Further problems: The mind body problem: How can a mind emerge from a fully physical system? Is the mind an illusion (or would free will being an illusion imply this or vice versa)?
The so called physical world is the illusion of the mind. You started your thinking from a reverse position, that the physical is the real one and the mind is the illusion, which lead you to believe in determinism.
There are no physical laws, there are only the laws of God, which are the wills of the universal mind field. They can sometimes seem like laws, but they are behaviors. Just like if you snap your fingers, you do it because you want to, and a bird flies because it wants to, and an atom moves because it wants to. The more complex the body/flesh is, the more it can go against the will/laws of God.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
I have never met an actual misogynist, not in real life nor online. I'm sure they exist, ie. men who think that women are somehow mentally and physically inferior and should be treated differently, like second-class citizens, that women are incapable of many things that men are, that women shouldn't hold positions of power, and so on. But I have never met any such person.
It's interesting that a couple of hundred years ago, such thoughts used to be the norm. You can wonder what has changed since then (?); were men really "misogynists" back then (?), and now suddenly are not misogynists anymore? Why? What would cause such a change?
