- What about runs that are being worked on? Should they still be listed, or should they be removed?
Maybe move them to a subsection in that page titled "games being currently worked on" or something similar, and perhaps mention who is working on that game.
So why are you allowed to reduce some numbers to bits and not others?
There's no "reduction" anywhere. 65536 is simply the amount of integers which can be represented with 16 bits. There's no reduction anywhere.
If someone says "using 6 decimal digits you can represent 100000 different values" is he reducing something to something else? No, he is simply stating that with 6 decimal digits you can represent 100000 values. That's it.
You are allowed to reduce 16777216 colors to 24 bits so what is wrong with reducing 65536 to 16 bits?
There's no reduction anywhere. That's like saying "1000 cubic centimeters can be reduced to 1 litre". That's not a "reduction". That's simply stating how many cubic centimeters fit in one litre. In the same way you can say how many numbers can be represented with 16 or 24 bits.
Since there are 65536 states in a set of 16 bits and a 256x256 image has 65536 pixels, you should be able to make it so each bit state represents the location of a single pixel.
You can index a 256x256-pixel image with a 16-bit number, but what does that have to do with your original questions? What does that have to do with anything? It certainly isn't related to bit depth (or particularly to images at all).
Your probably right about not being able to multiply them though. What if you added them together instead. That would make 40 bits (24+16) but that number seems way too low.
This is a weird game. First you have to kill some naked pink-haired kids, and if that's not bad enough, then you have to kill some cute puppies. Then there's the weird anime chick with a flag who appears at odd places. Then there are some cylindrical heads with sunglasses and pink machoke-lookalikes...
Armed robbery is classed as a serious offence (like murder and kidnapping) in most countries, which is why is some countries there can be some very excessive penalties.
IMO law should make a distinction between putting someone's life in real danger (ie. there's a possibility that the victim could actually die, for example if the gun goes off intentionally or by accident) and simply making someone believe they are in a life-threatening situation without that being really so.
Deliberately putting someone's life in real danger is reckless and should be punished more severely. Making someone believe he is in danger is not good either, but since there's no real danger I don't think the punishment deserves to be that great.
Swedishmartin wrote:
I would never have thought that they even kept support during the 16- and 32-bit era.
That they had it until now is mildly mind boggling.
A similar thing: Intel released its 80386 processor in 1986. They are not producing it anymore. Wanna guess when the stopped producing it?-)
One thing started puzzling me about the NES.
If I have understood correctly, the NES has only 2 kB of RAM for the program's data. The program code itself is not copied to this RAM (it wouldn't even fit there in the first place) but it's run directly from the ROM memory in the cartdridge.
The NES uses a MOS Technology 6502 running at 1.79 MHz. From the data I can see it seems that most opcodes take between 2 and 6 clock cycles and take between 2 and 4 bytes of memory. Let's see if I get the math correctly here:
If we assume an average of 4 clock cycles per opcode and an optimistic 2 bytes per opcode, this means that the CPU can execute in average 447500 opcodes per second, which means that it has to read, in average, 895000 bytes, ie. 7160000 bits per second. This is a reading speed of approximately 6.8 Mbits/s.
This is a humongous data transfer speed between the cartridge and the CPU. As comparison, a standard full-speed USB connection can transfer 12 Mbits/s. This means that the data transfer speed between the NES cartdridge and the CPU is a bit over half the data transfer speed of a modern USB connection. This sounds like quite a lot, considering the NES was introduced in 1983. (The USB standard was introduced in 1995.)
Is this indeed correct?
If you took the hexadecimal number FFFFFF and converted it into base 10 it would be 16777216. Shouldn't this number have some sort of meaning? For one thing it is much larger than the number 256.
It's more practical to say "24-bit image" than "16777216-color image", especially since "24" is much easier to remember (and to understand in context) than "16777216", and also because the image probably doesn't use 16777216 colors (even if it could). "24-bit image" more unambiguously describes the color depth supported by the image format and the amount of space allocated for each pixel. "16777216-color image" is meaningless unless you happen to recognize the number and can deduce that it's actually referring to a 24-bit image.
superjupi wrote:
Now, 32-bit color is, in actuality, 24-bit color with an additional byte of data to represent opacity.
That's how it usually goes in practice. There's no rule which would force a 32-bit image to do so, though. It could perfectly use, for example, 10 bits per color channel. But yeah, in the general case it's a 24-bit image.
Getting back to the maximum 'value' of 16.7 million, it is generally accepted that the average human eye tends to not discern colors of a much larger variety than this particular number. This is part of why nobody really made it a point to evolve beyond 24-bit color.
That's not true. 24-bit coloring is not enough to cover the entire range of colors which the human eye can discern. For example, only 256 shades of gray can be represented with such an image, and the average person can perfectly distinguish the border between two large areas of gray which differ by only one value (in each color component, to get the next representable shade of gray).
The reason why most images use 8 bits per color channel is simply because 8 bits is the most convenient amount of data, and 256 shades of each color component is usually enough for acceptable quality.
There are several image formats, most prominently PNG, which support larger color depths. PNG supports up to 16 bits per color channel (ie. 48-bit images). This makes it possible to represent, for example, 65536 shades of gray, which starts much better bordering the limit which a human can distinguish. (Of course the disadvantage of this is that the image, quite obviously, requires much more space.)
Even this, though, cannot represent all possible colors a human can see. That's because it uses the RGB color model. There are certain frequencies which a human can see and which fall outside the RGB range and thus cannot be reproduced with any device using RGB to produce colors. See more details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
What bothers me is that when people who strongly oppose religion are presented with the ethical question of why they are being so rude and insulting and why they don't respect other people who have done nothing to them, in the vast majority of the cases the answer is the same old "but religious people insult me" or the like, as if it was some kind of valid justification for them to be insulting too. They don't seem to see that this answer to the question is completely flawed. They don't seem to understand that they are doing exactly what they reproach other people of doing, and thus they are not any better. The answer is thus hypocrisy.
It's quite clear to me why pointers and references to a deque are not invalidated when items are added at the beginning or the end of the deque. I can also understand why adding elements at the beginning would invalidate iterators (because, if implemented in a certain way, existing iterators effectively will point to the element previous to the one they were originally pointing to). However, I do not understand why adding elements to the end of the deque would invalidate any iterators. My guess is that the standard doesn't guarantee it, but most implementations do it anyways (unless there's something I'm missing).
Well, I suppose that if you really want to make standard-conforming C++ code, you can't assume deque iterators stay valid after a push_back (even though references and pointers do). In that case you would have to use std::list instead, unless you explicitly need random access.
Is there any way I can iterate through this properly, and have the iterators not invalidate when one of the operations in middle of the loop did a push_back()?
Use std::deque instead. push_back() never invalidates iterators.
I'm saying that Christians are often just as, or more, intolerant of other people's beliefs.
Is that an answer to the question "*why* so many atheists are insulting"?
If yes, then it's once again the incomprehensible "monkey see monkey do" argumentation.
Wow, now you're really reading selectively. You seem to have completely missed my whole point, which was that if the OT is God's direct words and the NT is not, how can you trust the NT over the OT?
You are making an assumption I'm not. You are posing the question "if we assume that thing A is X and thing B isn't, then...". Your question starts from the assumption that the old testament is something more than the new testament, which is not necessarily the case. If Jesus is indeed one with God, then the new testament does have direct words of God too. Both the old and new testaments have both direct words of God and also writings and thoughts of people. Your preassumption is flawed.
This answer agrees that many atheists insult people, and indeed gives the suggestion that it's caused by doing something that has been done to them.
I didn't claim that the answer was not admitting the insulting. What I said was that the reason for the insults is flawed and not rational. Thus presenting it as a logical and valid reason is a mistake. It doesn't make the insulting any more acceptable.
In the case of "reading only what one wants to read", the chronological order is reversed though, since atheists supposedly read selectively first, THEN you did. You however said "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.".
No, the idea with that was that person A (me) says to person B "you are purposefully reading only what you want to read, ignoring the rest", to which person B counter-arguments "you are doing that right now too", as if that was a valid justification for the original deceitful way of reading. The fact that I may read deceitfully as well is in no way a valid justification or rational reason for the original deceitful reading.
I'm also surprised you admitted reading selectively.
It wasn't actually an admission. It was a figure of speech. "Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want" means "you are justifying your deceitful reading by accusing me of the same, which is a completely invalid argument".
You once mentioned atheists only reading and responding to things they wanted to read in the bible... but for some reason, it seems to me you are doing the same with completely ignoring nitsujrehtona's post.
Right. Because I read what I want then it's ok for atheists to read what they want.
I have never understood this "justification by mimicking" argumentation. Since people A do thing X, then it's ok for people B, who oppose A, to do the same thing X. Since religious people "insult" atheists, then it's ok for atheists to insult religious people. If religious people intentionally misread text, then it's ok for atheists to misread text. If religious people present flawed arguments, then it's ok for atheists to present flawed arguments.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs?
Because religious beliefs insult people.
Right. If someone hits me, then it becomes ok for me to hit others. If someone steals my car, then it becomes ok for me to steal other people's cars. If someone insults me, then it becomes ok for me to insult others.
It's not even a "payback" to the person who insulted you. You got "insulted" by some religious people, and as payback you feel entitled to insult religious people in general, including those who have done nothing to you.
Thus the justification you presented is completely flawed.
I moved a bible into the fiction/fantasy section at a Chapters (bookstore) today, and I haven't been smited yet!
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs? Is respecting other people really so hard to do? What does that tell of atheism? At least it seems that atheism is *not* about respecting other people but about making fun of and insulting them just because they happen to believe differently.
But as for the New Testament "obsoleting" stuff from the Old Testament: isn't the Old Testament supposed to be God's direct words and thus more holy than the New Testament? If so, how can something in the New Testament override something from the Old Testament? Or don't Christians believe that the OT is God's words, is it just the Jews?
If someone says "for now do this" and later "ok, that's enough, the purpose has been fulfilled, so you don't have to do it anymore" does that mean that the first command was somehow invalid? Does that mean that the first command was flawed? No, it just means that the first command was temporary, until the symbolical last fulfillment of that command happened.
If God had said "do this for 100 years and then stop", then nobody would complain. But if God says "do this" and then 100 years later he says "ok, now stop doing it", atheists immediately want to see some kind of inexistent contradiction there.
Warp wrote:
atheists...only read what they want to read (those parts which seem to contradict current customs).
Isn't that pretty obvious? The whole point is to point out those contradictions.
*SEEM TO* contradict. When read alone, without the whole context, without all the facts. There's no actual contradiction, just an apparent one, when the text is taken completely out of context. That's exactly what atheists like to do. Take one little thing out of context and ignore the rest.
Moreover, these atheists are childishly stubborn. When you point out, using the Bible itself, for example why no animal sacrifices are made, atheists will still repeat the same mantra "but it commands to do animal sacrifices here" like a broken record. No amount of explanation or reasoning will convince them. They don't *want* to be convinced. They don't *want* to listen. They just want to argue, and for that they need all those out-of-context quotes and they need to ignore the rest.
This kind of discussion is stupid and useless. Nobody will be convinced of anything else they weren't convinced already before the discussion.
Tomb Raider 3 was one of the very first PC games I bought. By current standards its graphics are quite sub-par, but back then they were pretty impressive.
There was one level, the Area 51 level, which was completely awesome. It had excellent ambience and it was very immersive. Even though nothing special happens in that level, and there's little fighting, it was one of the most impressive levels. Of course back then I was more impressionable than today (which in some way is a pity), but I still have the best memories from that level, even though I have played a lot of games since then.
If the Bible is the word of God and must be obeyded, why don't I see slaughtered goats at churches etc.?
Orthodox jews obey the laws of Moses to the letter, yet they don't sacrifice animals. Why do you think that is?
Jews don't read selectively like atheists do. They read the *entire* law. For instance, the law says that only levite priests assigned to the temple can perform the sacrifices, and that these sacrifices can only be performed in the temple of Jerusalem. There's no such temple currently and there cannot be (because there's a mosque at its place and they cannot destroy it for political reasons).
If christians started to sacrifice animals they would be breaking God's law. Only members of the tribe of Levi can do so (and from those, only the selected priests), and it can only be done in the original temple of God, which doesn't exist. Additionally, the New Testament reveals that animal sacrifices are actually no longer necessary because the ultimate sacrifice has been performed.
So, you see, christians are actually obeying the Bible when they don't sacrifice animals. The atheist anti-bible argument is completely flawed.
If you're going to say that the Bible is the absolute truth, you should then really obey it entirely, not just the fun and shiny parts.
Not performing animal sacrifices is obeying the Bible.
If God knew that society would develop beyond slaughtering animals and wanted the salughtering to stop when human socities evolved, don't you think he would have mentioned it in the Bible?
It is actually mentioned there. Animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore because the ultimate sacrifice has been made.
What makes some aspects of the Bible ignorable and others not?
That's a good question to ask atheists. They only read what they want to read (those parts which seem to contradict current customs).
the only way he could have known our actions from the very beginning is if they were predetermined.
That's just not true.
I know that if I drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. I can even calculate its final speed when it hits the ground. That doesn't mean that the ball is *predetermined* to do that.
Knowing what will happen (eg. by deduction or by math) doesn't make that thing predetermined. It just makes you smart.
