 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Lordlazer |
| User | Post | ||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer              Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| I find this very amusing and it saddens me on how pathetic, how narrow-minded, how grounded people are in their ways that they can’t see the bigger picture. Sure, you could argue that this unconstitutional, but it isn’t; the only thing that is unconstitutional is their ruling. I quote from Computer and Academic Freedom News
“Freedom of speech means nothing if "unreasonable" and "offensive" speech is banned. And free speech is not an interest--it is an inalienable right. As for "hostile environment"--like "community standards," which was also foisted upon us by a right-wing Court--it's a term that is dangerous because it means everything and nothing. *Environment* has no objective meaning. Anything you per- ceive--including the way I dress--can be construed as part of your environment. If you hate unions, and I wear my National Writers Union button, I have introduced a hostile element into "your" environment. If you don't like my but- ton tell me. Or walk away. But don't take away my right to wear it. The right to speak includes the right to talk back and also the right not to listen. My First Amendment rights are lim- ited by your First Amendment rights, and we are equal under the law. *This* is the proper way to adjudicate charges of verbal harassment. Universities, instead, "balance" First Amendment rights against a bogus pseudo-right--a "right" to an inoffensive environment where no one is ever allowed to say anything that might conceivably offend someone else or hurt their feelings.” Next, I quote from the CNN article on ID. “Text of the statement on "intelligent design" that Dover Area High School administrators have been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.” If this is all that the school was saying or even if they were saying more, it is their right. In addition, by them teaching Darwin’s theory, they are imposing a belief. Darwin believed in the big-bang theory and that still doesn’t explain why it happened. Nothing that we know of explains why it happened, which is why we have religions. By the school saying, “With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments”, they are leaving the choice still up to the students. However, they are introducing or/and giving the students more information on ID. By doing so they are actually being constitutional, because they are giving them more knowledge instead of strongly influencing that there is only one way. To remind you all, “Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “of Pandas and People,” is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understand of what intelligent design actually involves.” |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| I'm not saying take a whole class period to teach it. I'm saying that if all they did was read those paragraphs, that was a rediculous ruling. They are sharing their opinions on something. As far as I'm concerned. If the parents or students don't like it, they can go elsewhere. It is a free country, they can move.
For a college final, I made a paper on a school I would make [no it didn't have religion in the paper, so no need to go for this point]. I included a system that would include the parents more and said that the school had the right to transfer its students if it was thought they were hindering the others from learning. In addition, they held the right to fine the parents a small fee, because clearly they or some other source was effecting them. In any case, the idea for the paper was to get more parent involvement amongst other things. The reason I brought that up is that the parents can move or the school board could rule that right [if they don't have it already] to move that student to a different school if the people have a problem with what they are doing. The country is big. I mean, if you don't like your neighbor you'll try to get them to move or you'll move [or put up with it]. If something you don't like is happening due to the city, you'll move or try to vote and get some things changed [I don't think I need to list more examples]. |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| I understand what you are saying, that you "can't" move out, but you are wrong. What you mean to say is that you don't want to move out or you'd be in a worse situation than you are. I don't know your age, but due to your answer I'm thinking that you are under 18. If that is the case, like I said, you wouldn't want to move out, because you'd be in a worse situation.
Also, as to being forced to do something or be subjected to something you don't like. I get that usually every or every other day. Guess what, I put up with it. Here is an example, though it is on a whole different issue. At the college I go to, sometimes they watch a channel in the dorm lobby and I don't want to watch that channel. I don't want to be subjected to such things that the channel is conveying, either due to bordom or by what it is saying or I simply don't like it. You could say, watch TV in your room, well I don't have a TV and I don't want to be subjected to nothing, in this case, having no TV. You could say that I should buy a TV. I don't want to be subjected to wasting my money when I can watch it on the 4th floor for free. In addition, I don't have a place for it in my room. In other words, like I said, I'm being subjected to things I don't want to be subjected to every day or every other day. I deal with it or I move away from it, depending on what it is. It is as simple as that. I don't go and say that their opinion sucks ass and that they can't watch that show because I hate it or for whatever reason. I'm not that rude, I respect [or try to] every opinion, as long as they can give a reason more than "I just like it" or something along those lines. "it is obvious to see, that God could have created evolution to make the world work." Sure, that is possible, but I'm not saying that evolution shouldn't be there. What I was commenting on was that the big-bang theory doesn't explain anything. Sure, God could have used that method, but even so it still comes to this [if you don't believe in God]. What made the explosion? Then some people say it was matter [or whatever]. What created that? How did that get there? Hmm? "you'd have to violate my right to be aithest" They aren't forcing you to believe in ID, they are introducing the topic or/and pushing towards it, but isn't that was advertisments do? TV is violating my right to decide by slowly brainwashing me by their ad's some might say and they would be right to a certain extent. When one hears anything enough they start to think more about it. Those that are weak minded just go with the flow, while it makes the strong minded to think about it more. I hope that explains it to you.  |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| "Here is an example, though it is on a whole different issue."
That said that I noted that it was different than school. It was only an example, trying to lead others to use thier minds to think of others on their own without me holding their hand. It was the first example to come to mind when I was writing the post. *shrugs* "How did God get there in the first place? How did this superior being come into existance? Was it just always there!? Maybe matter and energy were too!!!" Sure, maybe matter was, but who made it happen? These things don't just "happen". I'm sure you've heard of the Watch Maker theory. If there is something, there has to be a creator. No matter how many times I smash something it won't make something greater, it will degrade. Sure, you can "smash" [combine] things to make something useful, but it is simply another seperate piece of matter and for that piece to become anything it needs a creator [or if the word creator bothers any of you, use the word master]. "I'd have to take a test in it, and have you ever tried to take a test when you believe every single thing is an absolute lie? It would be unfair to me because I wouldn't want to believe it." Um...I've taken many tests believing that what they said was total bull ****, but I did what they wanted me to put anyways. However, in many cases, when it came to such questions, I've been able to have it in essay form and the teacher wanted our opinions on such things. To get graded well, we had to back up, as best as we could, our beliefs. Examples of classes? Well...hmm...maybe an American Government class or Psychology or Philosophy class? [you fill in the class you want, again these are just examples that come to my mind that I remember having such "issues" in, as in they wanted me to answer a question and even though I had evidence to proove they were wrong, I had to answer "wrongly" to get a correct answer] |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| For those that don't care to listen to logical reasoning or have the inability to do so themselves, I leave for the world to feast on. *walks away* | |||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
I'm not a programming expert or anything, but this is an idea as to why they might have had those 3 separate areas defined both in front and behind. Maybe they used it so they could get the ripple effect they wanted when you enter and exit a painting? I haven't played the game in ages, but maybe if someone takes a long and see how far the ripple goes out [I'm simply guessing, but I'd guess it goes as far as the 3 area's in the front's width and height...and for the entering of the painting, I'd guess the back 3 areas would take that job]. The only problem that I find with this idea [without looking at code or anything for that matter] is that why would they need the back 3 areas so long if that was to represent the ripple for entering the painting? Anyways, food for thought. 
P.S. If I'm saying something that you think is stupid or whatever please ignore this post. I normally wouldn't post in a thread like this, because I know I wouldn't be much of a contributor, but that came to mind and I couldn't keep it out. Anyways, good luck guys. |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| Alright, thanks for the encouragement to post here. I'm glad I was able to help in some way. The thought came to me, because after seeing your layout of the map it reminded me of when I was making a map for Quake III and how 3d textures work and stuff. Though I never finished the map [mainly due to lack of interest and time rather used on other things], I thought it was a pretty cool idea, so if anyone wants to make a Quake III map [though this is off-topic, sorry] or want to see the ideas I had to use in a different FPS, I'd be glad to contribute.
Q: Is this editor going to work similar to GTKRadiant [editor for Quake III] or something of the sort? If so, editing will be somewhat of a breeze for me. (edited by Lordlazer on 01-22-06 01:52 AM) |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| About the Way the Editor works
I see... So no brushes.  Oh, well, it'll still be cool and fun to work with. So, would it work like a mesh [assuming I have the correct termonolgy, if not, sorry]? I think a mesh [at least for the Q3 editing is when it is], I guess you could say, is 2-D. In other words, it would be like one side of a "brush" [the brush being 3-D object, whereas the mesh is 2-D [only front and back or top and bottom, if you will]. If it isn't like what I'm saying, I'll just have to see, because at the moment I can't picture any other way of editing.(edited by Lordlazer on 01-24-06 06:36 PM) |
|||
|
Lordlazer Newcomer Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6701 days Last view: 6701 days |
| ||
| Just because you said the cape is better, I concur. I think the tail is. Anyways, have Mario be what you want him to be [cape or tail it is up to you], because each person has their own feelings about it. If the hack is good it won't really matter if he has a cape/tail or not.
As for the size on Mario, I think the size is fine. If you want to stretch him, go for it. I just think it will be interesting in either case. [as a note: Sonic is the size of a human [at least in the cartoon I think...did they change his size on me again and I wasn't paying attention?]] |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Lordlazer |
