Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
mr_roberts_z wrote:
Why ".org"? Was it the only option you had, or did you think .com or .net (or something) was a bad idea?
I thought a .com is ideologically bad idea, because TASvideos is not a commercial entity. A .net domain would perhaps been better than .org; I don't remember why I chose .org over .net. Perhaps the registrar which I used could not offer .net? I don't remember. .info was also an option, but it is so rarely used that it would probably have only caused confusion.
Also, why isn't there a way to go directly to someone's post from either their post history or from using the search function? Or if you can, how? =[
Sure there is. Click profile, click "Find all posts by", then click the subject of the post you want to read. Or did I misunderstand your question?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Phil wrote:
What is a "Vested member"?
A member who has been hanging around long enough and posted enough posts to intuitively understand the implicit rules of this community.
"Vested" is here synonymous to "Been around for a long time".
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Xkeeper wrote:
I have played the game, but that doesn't make this submission any less boring.
Though you have played about ten games in total. That's less than the proverbial fifty games one must lose quickly, and not enough to begin to appreciate the game's complexity :)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Boco wrote:
In Othello, you must capture with every move, and capturing replaces an opponent's stones with your own. Capturing also happens only along a line, ie only two stones are needed to capture.
In Go, you must entirely surround a group of stones to capture it, and captured stones are removed from the board entirely. You are not restricted in where you play your stones in any way.
Othello is usually played on an 8x8 board, Go is usually played on a 19x19 board.
Also, capturing is not the primary goal in Go. A game may well progress to the end without a single capture taking place.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Rridgway wrote:
Why did Cristianity proclaim for world peace yet kill millions of people because they were not Christian?
It is my personal belief that many of the people who killed "millions of people" (the amount may be disputed) were not really Christian at all.
In search for material to use as a reply to this question, I found an article that writes this:
"The crusades were actually large, but unplanned attempts to restore the Islamized near-East back into Christianity. It however also includes the battles of Christian military commanders against the paganese neighboring countries in other areas, such as those in the Baltic Sea Area (such as the crusades into Finland!).
The motivation of those who left for crusades was usually a sincere religious keenness and a will to redeem one's own sins by fighting actively against the unbelievers. But there were also those who left fighting because of a will for adventures or lust for victory, or because they had heard exaggerated stories about the riches of eastern countries. Also people, who had some dubious reason to leave the country joined the crusaders. Thus there ended up being corrupt people amongst the crusaders."
I find the part about "redeeming one's own sins" dubious, but since the article also writes that the crusades were authorized by the head of the Catholic church, the Pope at that time, I cannot be sure about its factuality. (I'm not catholic.) The Christianity which I believe in, has no teaching like that. Yes, Zacchaeus "said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold", but as far as I know, that was a spontaneous act and was less about "redeeming one's sins" (a selfish act) than it was about "recouping the trouble caused to others".
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
SXL wrote:
what are "quantizers" ? any general clue about how to set them ?
I assume that you are talking about codecs, because that is the only context where I recall seeing that term.
In the context of codecs, a quantizer is a parameter that scales the amount of data stored about each event (quanta of the original signal). A higher quantizer means less data, and a lower quantizer means more data.
More data fits more information about the original picture / motion / other signal, and thus a lower quantizer means that more of the original signal will be preserved at the cost of more data being transmitted (i.e. a larger file).
The translation between a quantizer and a bitrate depends on the amount of quanta (i.e. amount of data required to represent the source signal precisely). For low-signal-rate movies, the same quantizer produces less data (smaller file) than for a high-signal-rate movie. Hence, the quantizer setting is often synonymous to a quality setting, though it is not directly proportional to the signal-to-noise ratio.
In mencoder, the quantizer can be set differently for each codec:
-- For libavcodec codecs (-ovc lavc), use the vqscale setting in the -lavcopts parameter. Alternatively, you can use vqmin and vqmax to control the minimum and maximum quantizers used in bitrate-throttled encoding. Other control parameters also exist, but they are more expert-oriented.
-- For xvid (-ovc xvid), use the fixed_quant setting in the -xvidencopts parameter. Similarly to lavcopts, many expert-only options exist which affect quantizers.
-- For x264 (-ovc x264), use the qp or crf settings in the -x264encopts parameter. I'm not sure how those two differ.
-- For other codecs, see the manual.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
moozooh wrote:
Pretty much the entire set of rules of etiquette, starting from semi-mandatory to follow answer formulas to common questions (— "How are you?" — "Fine, thanks; how are you?" etc.) which are sometimes opposite to the person's condition, and concluding with certain ways of handling the silverware in restaurants. In other words, things you are expected to do in the modern society to not pass off as caveman, even if they don't bear their original or any functional value at all anymore.
Oh, you were talking about etiquette, not morals.
Well, yeah. You're right about that. As some people have noticed, I have tendency to ignore rules like that to some degree; for example, when someone asked me yesterday "how are you today", I replied "ill", which was the truth. I am really not a smalltalk person. Incidentally it is characteristic for geeks, I believe.(*
Re: Restaurant etiquette, there are some things that don't make sense today (the way you place the knife after eating does not necessarily imply a secret plan to assassinate someone after the supper), whereas there are some that do (placing the utensils in a certain position allows the waiters to read from afar that you're done and may need more service).
But that is not a question about morals.
moozooh wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
In practise, whether one is able to do it depends on many factors. One cannot really know until faced with such situation.
Well, I know it's difficult to say beforehand, but theoretically, what would you expect (or want) yourself to do in such situation, generally speaking?
I know I'm "passive" (hesitant, basically) and more prone to avoiding danger myself rather than doing some actions which will require bearing great responsibility. Since I'm inherently lazy, it's generally easier for me to accept a loss than to take certain actions to prevent it (though it doesn't mean I always decide to act this way).
I would have wanted to avoid answering that question, but.. here goes.
(A) In such situation, I would likely do nothing. I'm too slow to realize what's happening.
(B) In a tool-assisted world (i.e. if I had all the time in world to think about it as it happens), I would still probably not do anything. As I posted earlier, there's more at the stage than merely a game of numbers. The value of each individual's lives.
- In a moral sense, each life is priceless. As mathematics shows, infinity times five is not greater or less than infinity. You cannot compare them. So moral does not provide an answer.
- In a materialistic sense, the value might be determined by their respective potential accomplishments towards the good of the society. However, how are you going to compare the potential future accomplishments of complete strangers you've never met before? Even if you knew them, could you compare it? Would your decision be correct? Hard to tell.
- And in the Christian sense, each person is given their respective amount of time to come to terms with God, and the rest of the life after that to deliver the message of that to others. One cannot know the moment God has decided for each person. When I first started writing this paragraph, I thought that if the person to potentially be sacrificed was a Christian, I would probably sacrifice him so that the other five may still have time. However, I'm not sure if that's a good choice, either.
Ultimately, I find none of these three ways to think of the issue providing an answer in either way. What remains is the fourth:
In the egocentric sense, doing nothing would probably yield you no consequences, but sacrificing that one person would probably yield negative legal consequences for you. Therefore, doing nothing would be the choice.
moozooh wrote:
Also, what about my last question? You're made no indication whether you are going to answer it or not.
Sorry, I must have grouped it into that previous question without noticing that it was different.
> Imagine that you have a choice of either you or one of your relatives getting killed/raped/anything similar. Who would you choose? Can you endure something you panically fear or despise so that someone you value the most could remain safe?
Intuitively, I would refuse such a lose-lose choice at all.
But if I really, really, did not have any options remaining (such as overpowering or confusing the perpetrator), I would probably opt to protect the other. But then again, situations may be different. My reasonings may be faulty. (Such as the assumption that out of my relatives, I'm probably the one who's most exposed to the negative nature of humans and thus the least likely to traumatize.)
*) It may also be characteristic for Finns...
A man stands in front of a store, as out steps a woman whom the man apparently recognizes. They greet happily and the man initiates smalltalk with the woman in English.http://www.salakuunneltua.fi/index.php?entry=entry070921-174456
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
What might those "true colors" be?
Anyway, I'm tired of your taunting style.
When Warp asked me "Does it bother you that you have to answer all these semi-taunting questions about your faith?", I answered that it doesn't bother me. However, you are not "semi-taunting", you are "taunting", and not only in questions about "faith".
And it is rather obvious that you are doing it intentionally, as in your aim to write taunting posts. It is not a good thing for the enjoyability of the atmosphere of these boards, and it is not a wise thing to do towards an administrator on any forum system.
I will therefore reinstate your ban. My original plan was that should there arise a need for a new ban, I will simply double the length of the last ban, i.e. from two days, it goes to four, and from four, to eight, but given your general inactivity, I don't think that's going to be very meaningful. But I cannot think of a new deadline for it either. The account is therefore disabled until further notice.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
JXQ wrote:
⑴ What's the best gift you've ever received?
⑵ What's the best gift you've ever given?
⑶ Why did you undelete and respond to an 11-day-old troll post?
⑴ A microwave oven. It has been quite useful.
⑵ I cannot recall. I didn't give christmas presents (or any other presents) as a child (nobody encouraged me to, and there would really not been anyone who would have appreciated anything I could have given) and the habit has sticked on me.
⑶ I suddenly realized a reasonable way to respond to it. And, it was being referred to. I think unclouding the mystery lowers the temperature surround it more than keeping it censored would.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Tub wrote:
Luck manipulation was not used.
Why not?
What makes this movie stand out when compared to an unassisted game? 350 rerecords isn't much, how were they used?
Because I think that any move the computer makes will be approximately equally stupid. This is no Monopoly; the game does not take chances. It uses an algorithm to determine reasonable moves (within its ability) and picks one of those choices randomly.
Re: compared to an unassisted game -- aside from white's fast turns, nothing really. I did use rerecords in checking a few options, but any good player can do that by simply reading.
The rerecords were mostly used in frameperfecting the placement of each stone.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
laughing_gas wrote:
If chess isn't accepted then I think go doesn't stand a chance.
Why's that?
Randil: You mean, good job on the lack of luck manipulation? This didn't have that :)
Re: Your roommate's opinion; he's right, this is not a particularly interesting match. I thought it more from the challenge standpoint. More numbers, I guess. What is the highest level and fastest time one can beat this game.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Randil wrote:
do you have any favourite TV show (excluding anime)? Or is there any TV show you're actively watching, or watched?
Well, anime excluded...
I am currently (as in within a span of two years or so) following Stargate, Stargate Atlantis, The 4400, Doctor Who, Torchwood, The Outer Limits and Battlestar Galactica.
I have also watched recently (as in within a span of two years or so) some episodes of Iron Chef and Mythbusters.
All from Internet though; I don't own a TV (nor do I plan to own one).
Randil wrote:
And what's your favourite movie? (not TAS, I'm talking about real movies here :P)
I watch movies way too rarely to be educated well in them (less than one per year by average), but I suppose the one with most profound effect was The Matrix.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
moozooh wrote:
What are you commonly offended by? What common offenses generally don't affect you? (Inspired by Guybrush's question.)
I think it is a too broad question to answer right away. We are not simple robots whose overall behavior can be described with a few sentences.
Okay, I'll try.
I find myself most pissed when I notice that "justice" is used to perform injustice. Examples:
-- Copyright laws when used to litigate normal people.
-- Immigrants who perform crimes are left unpunished or are underpunished in fear of racial discrimination charges.
-- People falsely accused of child pornography can have their life and public image irrepairably destroyed.
False accusations, generally.
What common offenses don't affect me?
I usually try to see beyond the surface, and avoid joining the mob who blames someone because all the others are blaming that person as well. To draw an example from the Bible, again, I think that even if I was a non-believer, I would not take part in the group who stoned Stephen to death or even support them.
It's difficult to name common offenses that don't affect me, but it bears down to that I avoid doing injustice.
moozooh wrote:
I consider ethics a certain way of doing things that has lost its functional value; i.e., a certain action makes sense in the paradigm of the set of actions it belongs to, then after its purpose dies or is forgotten, people involved in this set of actions remain used to it and repeat it without thinking of the reason, effectively becoming a ritual (commonly excercised by high class society members). Do you share this opinion? Do you think ethics in this context is detrimental to various aspects of society relationships? Or any ritual (= tradition that has lost its functional purpose or has its meaning forgotten), for that matter? (For the record, I do.)
Please name some examples of such ritualistic morals. I found this question hard to answer.
Your last question in the post is about borderline cases in ethics. Whether it is okay to kill one person to save the life of fifty for example. Such questions are very often posed in TV series, because they are intriguing. TV series often chicken out the question by finding a way to accomplish both good and neither bad, to avoid offending the audience. But I can remember Battlestar Galactica as a recent (and strong) counterexample.
Theoretically speaking, one should always (I suppose) strive for the greater good. In practise, whether one is able to do it depends on many factors. One cannot really know until faced with such situation.
Taking Twelvepack's example:
Twelvepack wrote:
Or even better, would you shove a fat man standing by the side of the road in front of a bus, if it ment saving the lifes of 5 people who's car was stalled out in the path?
Suppose you can be sure that the action will save the 5 people but the fat man will die in the process. Also, the 5 people will die if you do nothing.
Doing nothing is certainly easier for anyone. If you shove the fat man saving those five, it is probable that you will face murder charges and probably get some penalty, because of the argument that there is possibility that those five people could have survived nevertheless. And what gave you the right to select that man's death over the others'.
If you go by the "greater good" principle, you will probably find more questions. Who says that fat man wasn't working on something that benefits the whole humanity whereas the five guys just regular good-for-nothing drunk-every-weekend men?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
upthorn wrote:
Huh, I always thought that Jesus preached tolerance even of those who would harm you.
But xebra wasn't harming me. ;)
Don't think Jesus said never to do anything. When he noticed that people had turned a temple into a marketplace, Jesus didn't just passively watch from side but rushed there, threw the tables down, opened cages in which animals were kept, made a whip out of some ropes and expelled the sellers, and shouted how people have made his Father's room into a robbers' lair!
And, I am being WAY too tolerant with xebra already. I should have perm-banned him already when he started his hoodlum edits shortly after I submitted Star Control II. And it doesn't seem like he has gotten any more respectful after that either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Guybrush wrote:
Are you offended by song lyrics that mention or tell about satan, but are not satanic? Here's an example.
I would avoid listening such music, but I wouldn't go on a crusade demanding the taking down of those lyrics from the website or that song off the shops' shelves.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Dasrik wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
I think the original hebrew word for it was "agape".
"Agape" is actually a Greek word and philosophical concept for love without attachment, such as love for family or for work. Just thought I'd let you know. :)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
IdeaMagnate wrote:
I have some experience with Drupal programming from work, and I find PHP to be a stupid hack of a language compared to most other interpreted languages like Perl, Ruby, Python, Javascript, etc. I have a good deal of respect for your programming ability and would like to know your thoughts on PHP and which languages you like to play with.
I already replied about my favourite programming languages earlier in this thread.
I agree with you in that PHP is a stupid hack. But it has matured a lot, developing features that are more commonly found in other languages, but it is what you say. However, it is still better than any of its alternatives that I know of. ERuby, ASP as examples. Both are line-based which limits seriously their agility. Java is way too political: you need to do a lot of work in order to make even the simplest interactive webpage.
For me, PHP is a win in that it's extremely simple to get started with (at least if you have C/C++ programming background), and that its standard library is very extensive, spanning from regular expressions to socket access, and from databases to character set conversions.
[Edit: Added a link to a guide article I've written.]
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
JXQ wrote:
What is your personal favorite chapter/verse/other length of excerpt from the Bible?
That is a difficult question. I cannot offhand name particulars.
Very common favourite passages of course include these two:
(John 3:16): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Psalm 23): David's song. The Lord is my sheppard; I have everything I need. He takes me to lie down in green pastures: he leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul: he guides me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: because you are with me; you protect me with your hand; and guide me with your staff. You prepare a table for me in front of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over. Your good and mercy surrounds me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
So I'll pick that Psalm 23. (Above is my translation of it from the Finnish version.)
Of course there are shorter verses that are often useful in the Internet for comedic and/or satiric effects, such as John 11:35 (Jesus wept.) or Proverbs 6:4 (Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids.).
EDIT: Oh, there's also this.
(1 Corinthians 13): Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
In the Finnish version, the word used in place of "charity" is "rakkaus" (love). It refers to the unselfish love, not the erotic love or the attaching love. I think the original hebrew word for it was "agape".
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
xebra, as much as your questions are fascinating and I would like to spend the little intellectual effort in answering them, the way you present them makes you seem such a jerk, that if I answered them, I would feel exactly the same as when grabbing a troll's bait.
I don't care what you think; I will ignore your questions from now on.
EDIT: I was also going to add here a personal advise for your life, based on things we have discussed a long time ago and how you recently have come forth at me, but on second thinking, I don't think that's going to help any. Of course, you will likely want to mock this paragraph as well, but you should know by now that it wouldn't do anyone any good.
EDIT 2: Others are free to ask the same questions but without coming forth as a jerk.
