Oh dear! That's so funny.. trying to decide if it would be BETTER if he spent WAYyyy more time on it..That could be a problem of a different variety! haha.

>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^taranimator:
Aw.. c'mon.. this is sweet!! And I don't even play Minecraft. Love the big-arse ring!
The ending is priceless...

But that's the thing... if you played minecraft, you would know just how lame this was. This took him the better part of 15 or 20 minutes to do. (probably a lot less if he already happened to have the materials stored away)

>> ^taranimator:

Aw.. c'mon.. this is sweet!! And I don't even play Minecraft. Love the big-arse ring!
The ending is priceless...


But that's the thing... if you played minecraft, you would know just how lame this was. This took him the better part of 15 or 20 minutes to do. (probably a lot less if he already happened to have the materials stored away)

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Well, I'm just glad we reached this point. I don't really feel a need to "attack" your views, I just wanted you to play the "you can't understand" card. It's the kind of rhetoric I won't spend time arguing with. If I told you I experienced a revelation that led me to believe the universe is governed by an invisible unicorn in space you'd think I'm an idiot. Well, that's all I have for you in regards to "you can't understand it". You're right, I can't, I haven't experienced "spirituality" and as far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter BS.


I actually said a lot more than that, ninjainheat. It's fairly disingenuous to characterize my entire post by one statement. It wasn't a condescension either. I am just going by my own experience. I didn't understand the spiritual at all, nor could I perceive it, until I experienced it. It's a bit like the story where the indians couldn't see the gigantic ships coming to shore when Columbus came because it wasn't in their worldview or understanding. So, I can understand your skepticism. I used to be equally skeptical. I was in fact agnostic, as I said before.

Since you say you're done I guess I'll cut this short. I would only suggest to you that you're rather quick to judge something you admittedly know nothing about. And the ridiculousness of contrasting these questions to fantasy as if there is nothing meaningful there is intellectually dishonest. Aristotle, and many other philosophers, thought they were important. His theory of God was the "Uncaused cause" which actually uniquely describes the judeo christian God. God, naturally, solves quite a lot of large philosophical problems. That's not a reason to believe, obviously. Yet it just shows that these are important questions. Was the Universe created is a reasonable, logical, and rational question. Is there life after death is also a reasonable logical and rational question. Unicorns and spaghetti monsters are not inherent to this reasoning.

Well, I'm just glad we reached this point. I don't really feel a need to "attack" your views, I just wanted you to play the "you can't understand" card. It's the kind of rhetoric I won't spend time arguing with. If I told you I experienced a revelation that led me to believe the universe is governed by an invisible unicorn in space you'd think I'm an idiot. Well, that's all I have for you in regards to "you can't understand it". You're right, I can't, I haven't experienced "spirituality" and as far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter BS.

>> ^shinyblurry:



I can tell you're itching to attack my views here, but since you're not sure, you can't unload the big guns. I'll make it easier for you. Yes, I believe in God. No, it isn't because I was raised with religion (i wasn't), nor was I indoctrinated. I was agnostic until a few years ago. I believe in God because of personal revelation.
Now you say God isn't likely. How would you know? If you want to look at it that way, everything is equally unlikely. Why should anything exist at all? I think you're having the problem that most atheists have, seperating the question from religious ideas about it. The question, "Was the Universe created?" is a perfectly reasonable one. I don't see why it seems so out there to some people to believe that the Universe could have been created. To say it all exploded out of nothing randomly I think is a much more bizzare (and ridiculous) thought.
The spiritual is not something you believe in, it's something you experience. It's not a matter of conceptualizing it, it's a matter of what is happening in actuality, real time, in the here and now. Before my beliefs changed, I had no clue what any of it was all about. I presumed people were imagining it. Not so. There are interconnections between us which transcend physiciality. There are parallel realities in which people can and do travel, in their dreams or wide awake. Until you experience it personally, you absolutely won't know anything about it what-so-ever. It's like trying to watch a football game from outside the stadium based on the noise the crowd is making.
I don't believe the things I do, or have the faith I have, because of some selfish need or weakness or fear. I believe as I do because of my personal experience. I wouldn't believe it, otherwise. It isn't arrogant of me to believe in something in which I have sufficient evidence personally. To me, truth is something tangible; it is not a vague conception. It is the framework of who and what I am. Regardless of whether it seems real to someone else, it is real to me, and the impact I have on the world is a direct result of that truth. So, either way you look at it, it's a real thing. This is what I meant about all the meaning out there. 7 billion human beings living out their truth. It is tangible to all of us.

>> ^Xaielao:

Lol quite funny. To bad the game sucks just as bad as the original did.


The game is definitely worth a playthrough if you like Star Wars in any fashion. It's basically, Star Wars *with the force powers over the top), a well written story and plot that fits into the mythos (except for the powers, but that's part of the fun).

It's more of an action-RPG for those wondering if they should play it. You level up (decide what powers/ attack combos/ and passive skills to put up), get to find hidden accessories for your lightsaber (let you deal more damage with force powers, more damage with your lightsaber, conserve "force stamina", etc...), and it has two endings going for it.

The story is better than the prequels... Even though it's straightforward and simplistic at times, it will make you play enough to get to the next story outro/intro. It sold a LOT of copies and was highly reviewed. But, I would listen to the gamers on this one as it's a platinum seller just on the XBox-360.

P.S.- I'm talking purely about the first "Unleashed". But, considering what I saw in the demo for the second, I'd guess that I'll be expecting the same quality/stuff plus the story is continued... The combat seemed far more "cleaner" in the "TFU:2" demo as well.

-- People have different tastes and expectations. Just turn the difficulty all the way up (it'll force you to learn good tactics and combo usage). I'd take "The Force Unleashed" anytime compared to: Halo:Anything, Gears of War: 2, Final Fantasy VIII-XIV, any EA Sports game, MoH 2-x^n, etc...

-- I'm not trying to be dismissive @Xaielao, but I thought I should do the very least of posting my completely different viewpoint. I also, got the game for ten dollars. So that helps.

>> ^Wingoguy:

GREAT game. The first excellent RTS, paved the way for a genre. If you never played this, you missed out. The game was actually much deeper and well done than this trailer lets on.
You can get a freeware, modded version of the game here (but I can't vouch for it):
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?gameid=1090


BTW, your link is broken.

@kasinator

Replicating weapons is not a theory. In fact, all weapons and ship are replicated except for those parts that use materials that can't be replicated (like latinum). Of course, normally there are safety lockouts that prevent you from replicating weapons, plus you would need a replication pattern.

But anyway, my point concerning the Prime Directive was that, as a Vulcan precept it is not primarily concerned with morality per se. When Spock tells Kirk that his holodeck solution is logical, he is not saying in any way that it is a "good" or "bad" solution. Spock doesn't take morality into consideration, only logic. Thus, while Kirk's solution is "logical" in light of the moral dilemma he faces (that he created for himself) it is not a situation that Spock would get himself into because Spock would not have deliberated on whether or not he must try to save the natives in the first place. And it's not like Spock doesn't have emotions. Even pure-blood Vulcans have emotions, they just shove them aside most of the time. To a Vulcan, acting on emotions invites chaos sooner or later and chaos is inherently unpredictable. Instead of trying to predict the unpredictable and play god, you decide not to interfere.

But then we kind of see the reverse with the Q for a while. They are so high-up in the food chain that they do not consider their interventions as disruptive any more than we consider our destroying of an ant colony disruptive. After all, ants as a whole will adapt and survive in one way or another. But still, even they must admit that they cannot predict what will happen to their own continuum and so they realize they can't stop themselves from evolving without losing what made them Q in the first place. Their "Prime Directive" of not artificially ascending lower lifeforms (except Riker for a while) into Q stems mostly from apathy towards non-Q things but also from self-preservation, as they cannot predict what would happen if non-evolved Q arrived en masse. Thus the same could be said of the Federation's Prime Directive, even if the self-preservation aspect is unavowed.

I know not of this "Sleep" thing you speak of!

Let's see... (last night)

Start work at 8, end at 4
Get home 5, eat, lay out cook book til 10:30, Diablo til 12, sleep, Up at 6 repeat!

I also just bought and installed Diablo II on a second computer so I can run two at once. Not only does it provide more mule space, I can play with my kids who also both have an account and play with me. (only after homework is done). I currently play 8 different characters, one of each class. So any good drops never go to waste.

I also do all the cooking and volunteer two nights a week at a local youth group. On top of that, My wife wants me to start coming with her one night a week to play Badminton - you know, to get out of the house more

And yes, I'm sadly lacking in sleep ¦)

In reply to this comment by residue:
Holy mackerel! That's a hefty undertaking. I glanced through the Vernon ad, that's some pretty high quality work. I can't imagine making 15 of those a year (not to mention 2 versions of each). I'm with you about the loss of dual monitors in the home setting, I love my dualies at work and they are sorely missed at home

and I just noticed you've reinstalled diablo 2 as well?! Do you ever sleep??

[redacted]

I didn't look too long, but do you have alternate playing methods?

You might want to look at Microsoft's Indie games for the 360. I don't know if the development side is completely free, but if it isn't much and the compatibility/code transfer isn't too hexing, it might be worth a try. (I think that has payment as well for the developers)

Excellent. I am glad you are able to comprehend such scenario.

I find it intriguing how when someone on this site gets mad/pissy with another, they go and down vote their stuff, despite its content, as was shown by, myself, you, geo321, and a couple others. Down votes are supposed to be about the content, but all to many times people go click the down as if it hurts the other.

I don't take it seriously, I was playing with you, quiet right in fact, to blow your brain I was going to promote it as well later on today if it was not.

It would be petty of me to continue what you started.. well even more petty. But what fun that "experiment" was, within ten minutes a reaction. You may as well be talking into a mirror saying I take this seriously. you took the bait... dont seem so distant from it.

Hope your weather is nice. If you have an hour to kill I would suggest this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVGryuO7zC4

-end communication


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Yeah, I wasn't gonna bother playin' your games but..

one. you keep egging me on
two. you downvoted my neat video about graphene outta petty spite.

Yes, I know. Betwixt your hourly furry fap sessions, it gives your life meaning to pester me via passive aggressive mind games.

Tho please.. do attempt to grow up and mature.

I mean, we could downvote every one of each other's videos in some pointless endless spiral of stupid.

Ooor.. you could act like any normal, well adjusted member/human who disagrees with another ..and move the fuck on.

Otherwise, I'll just ask Dag to step in and settle this quickly.


p.s. - I've upvoted your videos before and even did so last week.
Some are good. Most are crap. So is life.

Despite what you may have heard, Brent. The interwebs ain't that serious. =/

Cheers

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
funny thing is, you did exactly as I thought you would, well, knew you would.. you are somewhat predicable after the last time you where annoyed, you are a tit for tat sort of person, who seems fairly low on the scale of live and let live.

merely because I know you wanted to upvote this

http://videosift.com/video/Hammerlock-MMA-Demo-by-Sexy-MMA-females

its crying and calling in your marrow for that aspirated upvote.


ahhh im bored tonight.
im goin to sleep.

>> ^blankfist:

"That's why I wanna" - Every central planning statist's sentence begins that way.

Actually, it's a common way to segue from description of a problem to a proposed solution.

My tummy is grumbling, that's why I wanna go get lunch.

My balls itch, that's why I want you to wiggle your chin.

>> ^blankfist:

As a point of information, I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was terrified of what four more years of Bush would mean for us. I was told "if you don't vote for Kerry, you'll be throwing your vote away." The truth is, Bush won again, and sure those four years weren't ice cream and puppies, but we lived through it.

So why not stay home, if voting never matters? I'd prefer if you, and everyone who believed as you do followed that advice.

>> ^blankfist:
The point is, at some point or another we have to stop with this chicken little 'sky is falling' attitude and vote our conscience.

Well, here's the thing. Consider a game of football. Every time you take possession of the football, you want to get it into the end zone. Does that mean you should always "vote your principles", and throw passes to the end zone, no matter what? Or do you look at where you are on the field, think about the kind of defense the other team has, and come up with a play that you think will get the ball as far down field as you can?

Most people who play football, and most people who vote, think backing the play that will bring them the best result is the play to back.

I vote based on what I think will help bring about something closer to what I want than where we are. I would love to change things so all I had to do was show up each year and say "I want us to be there", and then let the process calculate the vector sum of our preferences in some more accurate manner, and give us a congress that can implement policies that line up with the result of that vector sum.

Instead it's a series of zero-sum competitions, and that's what's causing a lot of the problem.

>> ^Nebosuke:

>> ^robv:
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefor I can't support him.

Paul is usually reasonable, but the "evolution is a theory" is a game killer.


What game are you playing? Would you rather one that believes in it and never ending war? Also, anyone in medicine believes in evolution, he just doesn't believe it is the complete explanation for life on this planet. (to which many different people hold in fact. Some think that the particles for life come from outer space, or even that those particles were already organic and life didn't originate here...there are many non-evolutionary based ideas here. The debate to the origins of the first life on this planet are not as simple as invoking "evolution". It is still a hot area of debate, and one I take particular interest in.)


"(as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)"

Firstly, philosophically, belief means any cognitive content held as true. Everything you "think" is, philosophically, what you believe. Belief is your personal, subjective position.

Knowledge is defined as right and true belief. To make the claim something is knowledge, you have to be able to show it is true. Science isn't a method of showing things to be true, but things to be false (you start with a statement "all doves are white", this statement is emperically true until you find you first black dove; the practice of empiricism works on negative evidence). Philosophically speaking, the only path to knowledge is rationalism, not empiricism (as pointed out by Kant's noumena and phenomena). There is no scientific/empirical claim that is irrefutable (meaning certain: without any doubt: can be shown that it can't, and never will, be otherwise (positive evidence)). Certain, without any doubt, is what is meant by the word truth. Knowledge being true (or certain) belief means one can say, logically, that any information gathered empirically isn't knowledge. Is there any scientific fact that hasn't be usurped by later scientific facts? Not even motion has even been certain, which is far less complex than evolution, and we see motion everyday.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

(I largely believe in most of evolution btw)

PS (this comment brought to you by parentheticals...use them love them, overuse them!)

>> ^westy:

There is quite allot of lag , If you play the game on a lan it plays compelaty differently.
allso if you are used to playing games like unreal torniment , cs1.6 css , dod , quake you can instantly see how much lag there is in anny BF game before frost bite ( although bf2 and 2142 were defintly an improvment i think the netcode was still shit they just increased the power of the guns and the shooting speed and this masks lag to an extent thats primarely why Destert combat and project realty both played well as despite the laf it only took 2 shots to kill people)
Just play bf1943 which is bassicaly 1942 in frost bite engin and u can see what i mean , for example you can shoot people that are running harazontaly from you with the sniper all the way across the map , in 1942 it was pritty much imposable to head shot moving people at a long range you would allso shot people standing still and it would not register as a hit.
I just hope they do a game thats more in the spirit of 1942 for pc ( not just the 3 maps u get in 1943) since BF2 they have gone down the road of making the maps allot smaller and having the combat more in your face m where as with 1942 you would have people doign convoys and people having to use vehicals for transport which intraduces allot of game play that you dont find in anny other games on the market , where as basic ground combat is well coverd by other companies.
ALLSO NOTHING BEATS STRAFFING PEOPLE ON THE GROUND IN A PLANE OR HELICOPTER
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> ant said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/a/ant-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> I haven't noticed these lags in BF2. I don't remember them in BC2 beta either. Hey, now Intel is doing DLC too.
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> westy said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/w/westy-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">this would be epic , if BF2 engin was not a laggy peace of shit.
its a shame that the new BF engin frostbite is not open for mods as they have pritty much fixed all the lag issues.
I used to play , code name egal , Bf2 , BF1942 , DC, Project realty loads . but up untill frost bite unles you were shooting at people in vehicals it was a total lag fest with anny foot combat playing out realy bad litraly shoot people for ages and nothing would happen.
although all the Bf2 ,2142 and 1942 games and mods are gr8 if you have a large lan.
as i say such a shame that frost bite is not open for maps and mods nothing to do with EA wanting to make a load of cash from chargin £4 a map with DLC, Fuck you consoles affecting what were once gr8 pc games.
the whole DLC thing is one place where consoles are realy fucking over pc games.
</div></div></div>

I don't remember any bad lags when I played. Um, I don't think BF1943 came out for PC/Windows.

>> ^ant:

>> ^westy:
this would be epic , if BF2 engin was not a laggy peace of shit.
its a shame that the new BF engin frostbite is not open for mods as they have pritty much fixed all the lag issues.
I used to play , code name egal , Bf2 , BF1942 , DC, Project realty loads . but up untill frost bite unles you were shooting at people in vehicals it was a total lag fest with anny foot combat playing out realy bad litraly shoot people for ages and nothing would happen.
although all the Bf2 ,2142 and 1942 games and mods are gr8 if you have a large lan.
as i say such a shame that frost bite is not open for maps and mods nothing to do with EA wanting to make a load of cash from chargin £4 a map with DLC, Fuck you consoles affecting what were once gr8 pc games.
the whole DLC thing is one place where consoles are realy fucking over pc games.

I haven't noticed these lags in BF2. I don't remember them in BC2 beta either. Hey, now Intel is doing DLC too.


There is quite allot of lag , If you play the game on a lan it plays compelaty differently.

allso if you are used to playing games like unreal torniment , cs1.6 css , dod , quake you can instantly see how much lag there is in anny BF game before frost bite ( although bf2 and 2142 were defintly an improvment i think the netcode was still shit they just increased the power of the guns and the shooting speed and this masks lag to an extent thats primarely why Destert combat and project realty both played well as despite the laf it only took 2 shots to kill people)

Just play bf1943 which is bassicaly 1942 in frost bite engin and u can see what i mean , for example you can shoot people that are running harazontaly from you with the sniper all the way across the map , in 1942 it was pritty much imposable to head shot moving people at a long range you would allso shot people standing still and it would not register as a hit.

I just hope they do a game thats more in the spirit of 1942 for pc ( not just the 3 maps u get in 1943) since BF2 they have gone down the road of making the maps allot smaller and having the combat more in your face m where as with 1942 you would have people doign convoys and people having to use vehicals for transport which intraduces allot of game play that you dont find in anny other games on the market , where as basic ground combat is well coverd by other companies.

ALLSO NOTHING BEATS STRAFFING PEOPLE ON THE GROUND IN A PLANE OR HELICOPTER