This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 123savethewhales
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 138
1301
« on: June 20, 2011, 06:17:53 PM »
I suggest Astro+Vlad.
1302
« on: June 20, 2011, 01:48:09 PM »
can't tell if this will necessary increase damage.
How did you get the chassis to this shape anyway? Trov glitch for both width and height requires 2x2 at least.
1303
« on: June 19, 2011, 11:54:55 PM »
Don't use flails with beaters.
1304
« on: June 19, 2011, 09:57:25 PM »
I decided to do another one base on this description:
The overall theme and mood to the picture is lonlieness - whether or not this was intentional, it's certainly very fitting. I could actually imagine myself dressing up like that to meet someone and then them not coming, so I'd be stood alone, rather like this, holding a serious look to stop from being sad.
The color and shading is truly amazing - it gives off a feel of having been painted whilst sometimes using colors only possible in CG works. because I don't like the first one that much.
(Image removed from quote.)
You missed a great joke opportunity in not drawing her as chubby.
Why would I repeat a joke I already did? https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4333.msg364595.html#msg364595
1305
« on: June 19, 2011, 08:33:17 PM »
I decided to do another one base on this description: The overall theme and mood to the picture is lonlieness - whether or not this was intentional, it's certainly very fitting. I could actually imagine myself dressing up like that to meet someone and then them not coming, so I'd be stood alone, rather like this, holding a serious look to stop from being sad.
The color and shading is truly amazing - it gives off a feel of having been painted whilst sometimes using colors only possible in CG works. because I don't like the first one that much. 
1306
« on: June 19, 2011, 04:48:58 PM »
We all know a vet, mod, Ounce or 123 are going to win anyway.
Also, so much loopholes on there...
My tournament track record is horrible. I only won 1 tournament, and that's Replica War.
1307
« on: June 19, 2011, 02:48:11 AM »
Well that's easy enough to do :D
I have waist-length brown hair (curly or straight, it's up to you). My left eye is hazel whilst my right one is green. I have pale skin (as I am anaemic) and am (apparently) "curvaceous" and of a decent height (for a female).
I'm not sure what else to put down other than that ^^'
1308
« on: June 19, 2011, 12:05:01 AM »
LOL at no razors rule. Are you sure you can still win, Nary?
I wouldn't have answered to his challenge if I wasn't sure about my victory. If Freeziez, or any of you for that matter, think I can't hold my line without razors, you would be gravely mistaken.
Right because DS Light + Light Beater exists. If Razors are banned you can always just use that. See if you ban DS Light too, or if you ban non normal weapons completely, then you have a real head scratcher.
1309
« on: June 18, 2011, 09:47:36 PM »
bring the disk closer together so you don't need such big (and slow) wheels. The turn around time is crucial for this design.
1310
« on: June 18, 2011, 09:41:21 PM »
BSG. Really I care a lot less about the actual flip power then the simple fact that BSG has 8000 health and can be mounted externally, which means I am much less likely to die cuz my chassis got hit. Gigantic chassis with no shape advantage just isn't my thing. I'll wait for 123stw to chime in with his factual information about the motors.
Y'know, bars, graphs, powerpoint presentation and all that jazz. Then I can decide.
Nope you won't get that.
1311
« on: June 18, 2011, 09:25:13 PM »
This photo is bad and will not work at all. You need images as flat and forward facing as possible. Hell, I could just draw that blade by hand :V
It won't look good, at least it won't look anywhere near as good as an enhanced photograph.
1312
« on: June 18, 2011, 07:27:54 PM »
And likewise you can trick each and every one of your senses, so all your knowledge can be a lie.
This is a fundamental problem with experience and it's existence does not make one interpretation better then another on it's own. You see them "bite the bullet", here though you can reject superpower because you know Penn and Teller are human. You also know they are magicians. So you have more then enough reference points.
However, if I don't know they are human or magicians, then the assumption of super teeth will be just as neutral as trickery. As I would not know their physical limits.
1313
« on: June 18, 2011, 06:16:39 PM »
Right because something floating down from the sky and kicking you in the balls is not a reason. Has it ever happened in the past? No. Does it make sense for a physical being to fall from the sky without sustaining any damage? No. Does falling from the sky and kicking somebody in the balls prove divinity? No. At best, it proves the being has technology I don't know of.
See you are drawing random conclusions again. "does it make sense for a physical being to fall from the sky without sustaining any damage?" This is not a question in this scenario, it is an observed fact, hence a meaningless question. A more appropriate question would be "how does a physical being fall from the sky without sustaining damage" Obviously we lack the knowledge to know how this is done. So to assume technology is not rational because it is an assumption not grounded on anything. Likewise we have nothing to prove it's divinity, so both assumptions are equally as bad. If they are both just as bad, why should "Jesus" take priority? Because the religious reference point is the only existing complete explanation during the encounter. This does not necessary make it more true, but it does make it falsifiable. This is unlike unknown technology which you can keep making up on the go. If I have an experience like that, I will need pretty good evidence to disprove what I see. In this scenario, all you saw was something fall from the sky and suddenly kick you in the balls. That is not proof of divinity, nor does it rule out the possibility of hallucination. If after getting your testicles examined, and a doctor determined that the damage is consistent with being kicked in the balls, that's still not proof of divinity. All you have is an unexplained mystery. If you want to rule out Earthly causes, it could still be an alien, a ghost, a time traveler, etc. The scenario proves nothing.
All those requires me to make up stuff on the go. You can explain anything with anything as long as you can keep changing your theory. This is why a complete theory is qualitatively superior to a on the spot one, given a complete lack of reference point. It does not mean that you must stick to it/believe it once more information is gather. Nor should anything, even the existence of Jesus and God, be deem supernatural given we have the opportunity to investigation with observations. It is only supernatural now because we have no way of meeting them in person, but there's nothing supernatural about it once you can interact with them. Try dark matter, dark energy, superposition, entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, emergence of consciousness, complex systems, economics, etc. Yes we know so much that none of us can learn them all in one lifetime, but that does not mean science explain "everything". I didn't claim that we know everything. That's the problem with newagers and the religious. No we don't have all the answers, but history has taught us that the scientific method eventually leads us to said answers. Believing in the supernatural until an answer is found is just intellectually lazy.
Believing in Jesus as the entity you saw and believing in everything else the church/bible tells you are two very different things. I wasn't telling you to be religious here. What I am saying is that it is enough evidence to disprove that God or God like entity must not exist. Where they draw this power does not make the entity any less God like by any standards. In a different sense, take "Jesus" as a label of the event, and it's property the ones you observed only. Because these properties matches the biblical beliefs, you have a reason to investigate if the other properties match, but you do not have any ground to believe anything more before investigation. Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it. Gravity is internally consistent and works with our current understanding of the universe. One doesn't need to know how it works or why to measure its existence.
Replace Gravity with God, and we have, "God is internally consistent and works with our current understanding of the universe. One doesn't need to know how it works or why to measure its existence." Unfortunately this fits. God can be internally consistent so long as they change the interpretation enough times. Likewise Gravity is currently not internally consistent because it cannot explain quantum behaviors, and must be updated. Also, a large majority of people still understand the universe through divinity. The second part is far more problematic. Understanding how and why things works is essential for defining anything. If you see any new object without knowing hows or why, whatever label you give it has no meaning. So understanding the hows and whys are essential in claiming Newtons version of gravity or Einstein's version of gravity exist, because their versions included hows and whys. So if you live in Harry Potters world and you discover magical forces that you can quantify, calculate, put into books, and systematically channel, how is that differ from the 4 fundamental forces of gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak? We explain off the 4 forces as "property of space", as well as random particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum scale. So why can't we have a 5th force, or 6th force, if by adding them in can quantitatively explain a bunch of unexplainable phenomenon? If we could measure magic, that would be different. Thus far, we haven't found any scenario that requires magic to be explained. (Well, aside from the iPad.)
So we are in agreement here. Things we cannot yet explain, such as dark energy, =/= supernatural. Even things that are fundamentally unexplainable, such as the world smaller then Planck size, or the universe beyond the Hubble sphere, also =/= supernatural.
Fortunately some scientists are more open minded. They are willing to accept new forces so long as they can be observed/quantified. They fight powerful social dogmas that used the "we can explain most things" argument to discredit their finding, and through their victory we have stuff like cellphones and GPS. That's my whole point! In the scenario presented, and in every scenario I have thought of, divinity cannot be observed/quantified. Too many variables exist to isolate the cause as being divine.
If you try hard enough, you can find alternative explanations to anything and everything. This does not mean you have reasons to given a complete lack of reference point. Likewise, everything in the world cannot be fully observed/quantified. Brain in a vat, matrix, philosophical zombies, and solipsism are all stuff that deals with the limitation of observations. So this is not an unique problem to divinity. The difference however is that you have an opportunity to investigate this "Jesus" you saw, and see how much/how little it match with pre-existing beliefs. The one major thing I will investigate is rather he has the power to grant me eternal bliss or condemn me to eternal damnation. If he holds this properties then I will undoubtedly believe him, as he is "Godly enough" in my book. And how many seconds does it take for you to come to this conclusion? Have you any similar experiences in the past in which to draw reliable conclusions on? I am relying entirely on the fact that no sane and honest person has ever claimed to have been kicked in the balls by a god. What experience in the past has led you to the conclusion that a god did it?
I didn't claim God, I claim Jesus. This does not imply that this "Jesus" must hold each and every property of any given church. Even if divinity does exist, it does not mean the church has all the accurate properties of it. Accepting some properties that matches your observations does not imply accepting the whole thing. A whale does not stop being a whale just because you discover some new properties about them. It does however imply that the older version of whale interpretation needs updating. Given that you don't, what scientific law do you use to calculate the likelihood of hoax, hallucination, or a living monster? Why is an unidentified living organism unlikely given we find new organisms in caves, rivers, and deep sea everyday? Please don't throw probabilities around. Probability testing is a pain staking process that takes time to calculating/plug into excel all those things, follow by statistical analysis. Your gut feeling does not equal logic. It very well could be a "monster." That doesn't make it Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can safely assume said creature is not made out of spaghetti, though, based on my knowledge of the pasta.
We have yet to define further properties of this monster you saw. So we have no ground at all on how much it actually matches real pasta. Seeing some flashing light and literally seeing a spaghetti monster kicking you in the balls are 2 very different things. When I see flashing light, I assume I see flashing light. Any further assumptions are mere fantasies that can neither be verified by or hold relevant to me. As such I do not care. But how do you know it was a monster composed of spaghetti? You haven't had time to study the thing, so at this point, you're just speculating. (And your speculation is something that isn't consistent with what we know about living beings or spaghetti.)
It composes of what "looks like" spaghetti, and eyes are one major observation tool. Again, "what we know about" is not important because these are events specifically design to lack reference points. We have yet to define the detailed property of this monster yet. Try having an alien mother ship beaming down green dudes shooting lasers at me. Yes, I will assume they are aliens without considering other explanations. Hey it might be a hoax too, but I think whoever just stands there and hope the laser is fake are retarded. I believe my eyes enough to not take that kind of chances. Regardless of what it really is, the scenario is still scary. Fight-or-Flight kicks in, and I'd probably run. But again, just because I saw green men with laser guns, that doesn't mean aliens. Other earthly explanations (military testing, hoax, hallucination, etc.) and even supernatural explanations (ghosts, god(s), time travelers, vegetable monsters, etc.) exist.
So going back to the beginning, because the Alien theory is complete and can be falsified. All other theories are made up on the spot and continues to be reinvented on the go, so they are unfalsifiable.
1314
« on: June 18, 2011, 11:01:58 AM »
Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it.
I know this is Frezal's debate and all but this paragraph bugs me. Mysticism's definition is:
1.
a.Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b.The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2.A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
Definition number 1 and 2 seem inapplicable when dealing with gravity, so that leaves definition 3. Gravity is not vague or groundless. There are some aspects of it that are speculation, but that hardly makes gravity mystical. Gravity is the attraction between two bodies with mass. Its strength can be quantified using equations. It exhibits traits that can be observed and measured. The only speculation we have about gravity is why it is there at all.
Also, from what I can tell the LHC hasn't looked for the existence of the Higgs Bozon yet do to a technical fault. So the fact that gravity's origins remain unexplained does not make it mystical.
The problem is the second part, "groundless speculation", which is strongly cultural defined. One culture might accept certain evidence while another rejecting them. So take this two examples that is commonly refer to as mysticism, witchdoctors and shamans. Most of them are not vague, they are past down through generations with rigorous rules and method of healing. They are also not necessary groundless. Natural herb can have healing properties and with generations of trial and error it is statistical that some of their methods should work. However, you will be hard press to find any western doctors who will accept any of it. So even stuff like acupuncture took a long time to be somewhat accepted. It is heavily documented and not vague. The problem is how one culture translate the evidence of another. Stuff like 5 elements of the human body, fire/wood/earth/metal/water are surely not helping when directly translated. They can however mean entirely different things than the western view in that context/culture. So even now many western doctors will call that mysticism. Think back to Newton's time, and what he claims. He said the force that pull us down to earth are the same force that keeps the stars together, and that it is a fundamental part of nature. Even with all the math and proper prediction of celestial objects, a "force that just is" is considered mysticism at the time. Newton being deeply religious also doesn't help, and the line between science and religious beliefs at the time are not nearly as define as today. As it turns out this notion has since been replaced by General Relativity. And we can expect that in the future, the unified theory will at least change some part of that. Suppose that the unified theory requires a radically different thinking of gravity then general relativity, would that make today's believe mysticism because we believe it completely knowing it cannot explain things in subatomic scales? As for the Higgs Bozon, that is a prediction of the standard model. Regardless what is the reason preventing the LHC from working we cannot assume that Higgs exist at this point. After all if we can just assume stuff like that, who's going to pay all that money to build that LHC to begin with? Basically, I am saying that most science, however defined and accepted now, starts out as ungrounded speculations. Likewise many science in the outer frontier now, like theoretical physics, are highly speculative and not well grounded. This is why many philosophers are still struggling with the distinction between mysticism and science, and such distinction isn't something you can simply pull out from a dictionary.
1315
« on: June 18, 2011, 03:58:04 AM »
Get OC 1.1 http://wistinga.online.fr/opencanvas/Why do you want this? Because it lets you draw on LAN with your friends..... Yes now you don't need RL friends just to have someone to draw with.
1316
« on: June 18, 2011, 03:54:38 AM »
Hey weird stuff happens in this game. And if there's one thing I know it's that numbers can mean nothing. Like literally some numbers does nothing at all.
1317
« on: June 18, 2011, 02:02:59 AM »
Hmm...ignorance isn't bliss in 123's case.
Well the context isn't "rather you are an Atheist now", but "rather you will remain an Atheist after you saw Jesus float down from the sky, kick you in the balls, and float back up into the sky". I think that is enough experience for a serious investigation. And rather that is a hoax/hallucination/alien/military testing/God/etc remains to be observed, not assumed. Outright rejecting the experience because of Atheism is blind faith by any definition. Edit: Yes this topic has always bothered me, so I am going to rant. People nowadays seem to just spam words like logic, chances, rational, real, really, truth, and all that other junk to reinforce their existing beliefs. They don't realize the the rational process takes 1. Time to process 2. Observation/test to confirm You can't claim to use logic when you spend half a second and without any observations/test. Believe it or not I spend a lot of time investigating the process of thinking and the use/limitations of logic. Logic isn't everything, it is a pattern recognition process that mixes facts with believe systems to predicts the future. It works only because the world we live in is relatively stable and functions under stable laws. If tomorrow the world suddenly changed a lot your logic will be useless unless it can also adopt. This is why people who use their pre-existing logic in gaming stays n00b and fail so hard, because game mechanics can deviates a lot from real life. The worst is still the term "Common Sense": how much I hate that term and anyone who claims to rely on it. I am just wondering, am I making sense to ANYONE here?
1318
« on: June 18, 2011, 01:51:56 AM »
And one more page of spam in this thread.
^And 2 more posts (yours and mine).
1319
« on: June 18, 2011, 01:20:52 AM »
Worst part is that somehow he can holds strong faith in Atheism. It isn't faith. I don't have an active belief in no gods; I have been given no reason to assume one or more gods exist. The same could be said about Sasquatch.
Right because something floating down from the sky and kicking you in the balls is not a reason. If I have an experience like that, I will need pretty good evidence to disprove what I see. These kind of logic only ends in epistemological solipsism. If you cannot be sure what you see ever happen, you cannot know the external world exist with certainty. Whether or not reality is real doesn't matter. Thus far, nothing has happened that cannot be adequately explained by science (even if it takes a while to find an answer that works). Not once has magic been the sole explanation, or the most logical.
Try dark matter, dark energy, superposition, entanglement, Schrodinger's Cat, emergence of consciousness, complex systems, economics, etc. Yes we know so much that none of us can learn them all in one lifetime, but that does not mean science explain "everything". Also, how is gravity is qualitatively different from mysticism? Yes this is a serious question. Your dogma might immediately reject this because gravity is "so science" today, but when Newton first announce this many scientist attack it as mysticism because it is just some attractive force that exists. Yes we can put equations on it, we know how strong it is, but even now nobody has a clue why gravity, or mass, exist. Nor can we alter/manipulate it in any way. The LHC has yet to find the Higgs Bozon. So it's just some force, that's just how it is, and you just have to live with it. So if you live in Harry Potters world and you discover magical forces that you can quantify, calculate, put into books, and systematically channel, how is that differ from the 4 fundamental forces of gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak? We explain off the 4 forces as "property of space", as well as random particles popping in and out of existence in the quantum scale. So why can't we have a 5th force, or 6th force, if by adding them in can quantitatively explain a bunch of unexplainable phenomenon? Things we cannot yet explain, such as dark energy, =/= supernatural. Even things that are fundamentally unexplainable, such as the world smaller then Planck size, or the universe beyond the Hubble sphere, also =/= supernatural. Fortunately some scientists are more open minded. They are willing to accept new forces so long as they can be observed/quantified. They fight powerful social dogmas that used the "we can explain most things" argument to discredit their finding, and through their victory we have stuff like cellphones and GPS. Some people like to compare God with spaghetti monster. If I saw a spaghetti monster jump down from the sky and kick Frezal in the balls, I will believe it exists. Even though it's far more likely to be a hoax or a hallucination? When you see a strange light in the sky, do you also assume aliens without considering explanations that we know to exist?
And how many seconds does it take for you to come to this conclusion? Have you any similar experiences in the past in which to draw reliable conclusions on? Given that you don't, what scientific law do you use to calculate the likelihood of hoax, hallucination, or a living monster? Why is an unidentified living organism unlikely given we find new organisms in caves, rivers, and deep sea everyday? Please don't throw probabilities around. Probability testing is a pain staking process that takes time to calculating/plug into excel all those things, follow by statistical analysis. Your gut feeling does not equal logic. Seeing some flashing light and literally seeing a spaghetti monster kicking you in the balls are 2 very different things. When I see flashing light, I assume I see flashing light. Any further assumptions are mere fantasies that can neither be verified by or hold relevant to me. As such I do not care. Try having an alien mother ship beaming down green dudes shooting lasers at me. Yes, I will assume they are aliens without considering other explanations. Hey it might be a hoax too, but I think whoever just stands there and hope the laser is fake are retarded. I believe my eyes enough to not take that kind of chances. I will not respond to the other 2 because you resort to personal attacks, which is a clear sign that you ran out of intelligent things to say.
1320
« on: June 17, 2011, 11:59:33 PM »
It's the enormous size and base only connection that make it suck.
The second is debatable.. you can have a burst poke out of the top of the robot that is indestructible..
No there's no debate, that thing has 400 HP. Which means it smokes up in 1 hit. You also cannot stick anything out except for the hinge, which is like every other motor in the game. Alll the other stuff you see sticking out are just graphics. They have no real collision mesh.
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 138
|
Show Posts