Great, you're already more than 16 seconds ahead of Atma, and I couldn't spot any mistakes this time. Keep it up, and you should be about a minute faster in the end.
Yrr wrote:
Isn't it faster…
Well, I don't think so: having to attack twice before the next backdash is hardly going to save you any time, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I hope you don't take this (too) offensively, but the idea that modern methods, technology, reasoning abilities, etc. are always better than older ones is primarily derived from evolution-related thought. I cannot say that I completely agree with that.
I did not say it is always better. But it is reliable to a point so that two different persons will have the same result based on the same input data, like you and me trying to solve 2+2.
If a modern scientist makes a discovery, has it reproducible and describes the input data, I would expect another scientist to be able to do the same (like how we can conduct interesting experiments at, say, chemistry classes).
Dacicus wrote:
Evolution is in the same position, though: How can we trust anyone if they weren't actually there to see and write it all down? Any argument you use will most likely involve one of those additional assumptions that I listed, or possibly one that I didn't list. Actually, the Bible says that God was there when He created the universe, so that's better than what evolution says about witnesses.
Not quite the same. An example: I am alive, it is common knowledge that all the alive persons were born (let's disregard the other ways of having a child for this example, it's not the point), there's a documented evidence that I was born. The same is for my parents: I know that they were born at some point in the past even though I myself wasn't there at that moment. The same is for my grandparents, and so on. We don't have to be there to have a theory on what was there at that point, as long as it doesn't conflict with the common sense (such as my great-grandparents being born in an octopus or a horse family). Every step that increases the depth of that theory has at least a valid reasoning behind it, or else it would've been disproved in no time.
At the same time, there's no way to prove that one of my ancestors has said "I am a little teapot" somewhere long ago in the past. And the evolution theory doesn't even try to make us believe otherwise. However, the Bible does. How am I supposed to believe that God said what he said, if no-one was there to write it down? Reading that in a book written by fallible people? I don't know and can't determine if it all wasn't made up at all!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I've checked them out, some of the articles I've read seem pretty valid. Why don't you make an article for that?
Dacicus wrote:
Using your argument, anything written by modern people is even more removed from the events that you believe happened, so why should we count it as evidence?
Everything (well, almost) written by modern people can be proven using the same (or better) methods as described by those people, for everyone willing to do that, which probably is the main part of my point. That's why I have much more confidence in that, than in the events that could be described ONLY (!) by someone who actually was there when they happened, and as far as I know, there wasn't anyone to see and write all that down. Thus, I don't see how can such a thing be trusted.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
And how does it affect this claim: "the geological age of the eath (by carbon dating) is far older than the age of the galaxy (based upon its rate of expansion)"?
Dacicus wrote:
The fact that there's no "Evidence of Creation" article makes me doubt Wikipedia's neutrality.
It's because no-one can provide the evidence (provided you understand what evidence means). A book written by people (fallible people, as you would say) who were born long after the events mentioned in it occured, can't be counted as one per se. But as suggested by Bob A, you could try.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I have to agree, this run is quite promising in the least. There is a lot of entertaining parts, especially boss fights.
By the way, could anyone remind me if Roo is an efficient character? I remember having fun playing as him but I don't remember the details (not surprising given it was over 10 years ago).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Glad that you're back and collecting the souls again.
…19K of rerecords for the first three minutes of gameplay? Ouch. o_0
I see some insane numbers at the end of this.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I don't get why do you take a simple joke so seriously. ;)
HiddenGamer wrote:
Becareful on what you say then, because children can be 1-11 years old.
You said little children here, which mean 1-11 years old. Don't say I'm wrong just admit you made a mistake.
*sigh*moozooh wrote:
such as little children (hundreds of millions of little children!), who obviously couldn't participate in the survey
moozooh wrote:
I meant children under four or five years old, who can't fully understand the concepts and thinking categories of a given religion, thus cannot name themselves the adherents of it, and therefore can't be counted as the adherents of that religion.
I don't even get where did you take those "1—11" children.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So you are saying little children cant believe in God and the Bible and have a faith?
That's wrong.
I meant children under four or five years old, who can't fully understand the concepts and thinking categories of a given religion, thus cannot name themselves the adherents of it, and therefore can't be counted as the adherents of that religion. Do you think that if, for example, a child is born in an islamic country, it automatically becomes a muslim? If that's the case, I don't want to disappoint you, but…
That's wrong.Nach wrote:
Isn't removing a bit of nail easier?
Actually not, cause hairs are so frail that they come out by themselves! But don't tell Sikhs about it. ;))
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I have some troubles believing the representative value of that list for at least one major reason: for example, there was a great mass of undecided (thus, nonreligious) people, such as little children (hundreds of millions of little children!), who obviously couldn't participate in the survey, and the percentage of nonreligious people counting that mass is, IMO, way too low compared to say, christians (besides, the overall number — ~6668 millions — nearly exceeds Earth's population in total; though as the description implies, this is an "approximate estimate"). And if this explanation isn't boring enough, I could think of some another.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
To those who are interested (though there hardly are any of those…), here's a short demo that clears the old Tourian escape shaft ~six frames faster than JXQ/OgreSlayeR:
http://dehacked.2y.net/microstorage.php/info/1803/old_tourian_shaft_done_quick.smv
("~six" because the resulting horizontal positions in the next room don't match, so it's more like 5.5 frames.)
As you see, the difference can easily be spotted because Samus noticeably yanks down each time she falls close to a ledge. This is good because it's not only faster, it also looks faster (…and cooler). :)
In a run as long as JXQ's, I would estimate it to save 1—2.5 seconds, probably a bit more.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The membership and the access to voting aren't directly correlated. I'm just too long here to remember the exact circumstances under which I've gotten the access myself clearly, so I can't help with the exact answer. But if you will stay on the forums, it will eventually be granted to you, so don't worry.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
fetofs: you need 17 more posts to be able to vote.
EDIT: Oops, I stand corrected: that will only change your forum membership status, not the access to voting. Sorry.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
No, the frame you recording currently is officially the last frame of your movie. If you rerecord an earlier point, all further progress is lost. Besides, what you do in those parts will most likely affect everything that will come after them. You can try altering the movie by hexediting, but I'd not count on that.
This is also covered in the FAQ, you know.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Route 99 3 and Sunset Hill 2 were absolutely brilliant, Nitsuja.
I also have a question regarding partners: do they affect the main character in any way except for "summoning" (or however pressing R is called there)?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I still doubt that people will be able to figure out how to make life.
And what if they will? If an event that is extremely unlikely to happen (by doctrines especially) finally takes place, it always has an impact on those who are concerned, and even on those who are not. Remember the story about heliocentrism (and church's position against it).
andrewg wrote:
you're not actually creating a life by cloning though. the process of cloning is odd.
The process may be as odd as you may wish to think about it, but, well, it works. Besides, the clone is not a perfect copy of the cell donor, which implies that it is a new life.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
