Profile for Kelandon

Error message

  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6595 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6595 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6595 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).
  • Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type int in element_children() (line 6595 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).
  • Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 23:14 Profile Homepage #137
Stillness: I've given my reasons. My objections to what you've said in this thread don't logically depend on common descent being correct.

For the record, I'm objecting to your premise that specified complexity is only observed in systems created by an intelligence. For all I care, common descent could be false, and your premise would still be wrong. If you're interested in discussing this, let's discuss it and not attempt to bring in additional (and distracting) issues.

[ Thursday, January 10, 2008 23:20: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 22:22 Profile Homepage #135
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

When you say random processes can produce similar results to nonrandom ones I can buy that.
Then we agree on this point. I said at the time that it's not a rigorous analogy.

quote:
What I’m not buying is your claim that monkeys can write Shakespeare. Here’s why: It was actually done! It was only six monkeys for a month, but their work was published.
http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/

They didn’t get one word of Shakespeare.
Well, yeah, it's already been pointed out that real monkeys are not actual random letter generators. I did say that monkeys "typing randomly" would do it, which I still maintain; it's just that real monkeys don't type randomly. Real monkeys also don't live for untold gazillions of years, either, but these sorts of practical considerations are not exactly relevant for the idea.

Put another way, this was a thought experiment to explore plausibility, not an engineering design. It's probably worth letting this one go, in order to focus on other issues.

quote:
If I modify my shoe using only the material available in the shoe, I might make it more comfortable for my environment. Maybe it’s hot and I cut vents in it. But I can modify and modify for billions of years and never get a stealth bomber. The stuff is just not there.
Well, let me nitpick your analogy, then. The "stuff" is there for evolution. Even very early life had DNA, and DNA is the main difference between us and very early life. It just didn't have DNA in at all the right order or length. But DNA copies itself, so the amount available is not an issue, and the order can change, given time. If your shoe were made of metal and sufficiently large, then patching and patching it and patching it could eventually lead to a stealth bomber.

quote:
But when you look at the way it works in reality, not in our minds, the flexibility that you need to get from molecules to microbiologists is just not there – not in the lab, not in nature, and not in the fossil record.
You said this in our previous discussion, but no one else accepts this.

quote:
And if pi is not random, it’s because you are selecting it. You specify it by selecting a circle and it’s diameter. You have a mind. Pi by itself is a random number though.
Okay, basic probability time. No number is inherently random or non-random. Processes can be random or non-random, not numbers. Finding the next digits in pi is a non-random process. Selecting a number, any number, out of all numbers can be done randomly. But the number 2 could be random or non-random, depending on how you come up with it, and so could pi.

This is just what the word "random" in probability means.

quote:
Information is an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. So “brzydki” may convey information, but I can’t know that unless you clue me in on the code or I become aware of a “receiver” that can decode it. “Mimsy” (lol, you changed it to “toves.” I know the nonsensical poem.) and “ugly” are understandable to me, but there’s a problem of frame of reference. Unless there’s context they’re just random sounds having no information.
I changed it because "mimsy" is apparently a real word outside the context of Jabberwocky. "Toves" is not. :P

But your description of information makes it entirely plain that whether something contains information depends entirely on the observer. If you speak Polish, "brzydki" contains information and "ugly" doesn't. If you know your Lewis Carroll, "toves" conveys information, but if you don't, it doesn't. If "specified complexity" is closely related to "information," and "information" depends on the observer, then I have to worry that specified complexity depends on the observer, too, which would make it completely subjective and useless.

You left alone the other problem, which, if you wanted to focus on specified complexity, you really should've addressed: any given randomly-generated arrangement has specified complexity. For example, I could pick up a rock and say that its atomic and molecular structure has specified complexity, since you'd need to have a fairly long algorithm to generate exactly the same rock again. You've replied to this that you could just generate any random rock, and it would be equivalent, but it wouldn't be the same rock.

It might equally lack information, but we've just said that whether something has information or not depends significantly on the observer, so this is not a useful distinction.

quote:
The nested hierarchy came before the idea of common descent. How would you explain that?
And Democritus came up with atomic theory. That doesn't make him Niels Bohr.

quote:
By the way, what would prevent you from answering me now?
The same thing as last time. We can't even understand each other's terms yet, so it seems entirely fruitless to attempt to construct arguments with them.

quote:
When you see living things you find out where they go in the hierarchy after the fact. Living things don’t necessarily have to fit because of common descent
Yes, they do have to fit. It's just the placement that can be unclear. But nothing is so far removed from the hierarchy that we don't know what its closest relatives are, so things do end up fitting rather neatly.

This is not an inevitable consequence of a nested hierarchy, by the way. Languages also fit into a nested hierarchy (by a similar evolutionary mechanism), but there are languages (Basque being one of the more famous) that don't appear to fit at all into anything that we know. Most people figure that Basque didn't emerge completely separately, that at some point it was related to something that is related to some other known language, but that it goes back farther than we can trace with our linguistic history (since our fossils only go back a few thousand years, unlike biologists'). But we don't have any direct evidence that Basque isn't an instance of language arising completely independently.

It just happens that the biological nested hierarchy is a particularly complete and tidy one, so we can fit everything in somewhere.

quote:
all principles and laws need not be quantified (right-hand-rule for magnetic fields; rotary direction of a whirlpool; the Pauli Principle; Le Chatelier’s Principle; The Principle of Least Motion)
Uh, if I'm not mistaken, every single one of those principles has been quantified (assuming you mean "least action"). They're often expressed in words, but they're also expressed with equations.

[ Thursday, January 10, 2008 22:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Town script error in Blades of Avernum Editor
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 17:33 Profile Homepage #3
Set that in the Outdoors menu using "Set Starting Location."

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
How continuous is the trilogy's story in The Avernum Trilogy
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 11:12 Profile Homepage #4
As far as story continuity goes, yeah, you're best off starting with Avernum 1.

I've never thought this before, but it occurs to me that you probably want to play Avernum 1 first if you're ever going to play it at all, because most of the fun is in exploring this brand-new cave world, and if it isn't new (because you played A2 or A4), it's probably going to be somewhat less enthralling. (It's a pretty darn awesome game under ideal conditions.)

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 11:06 Profile Homepage #127
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Regarding your monkeys, is it also true that if I keep jumping in the air I will eventually jump 50 feet high? 1000 feet? 1,000,000,000,000 feet? Because your theory about how anything is possible given time sounds wonderful. Call the bouncing baby bunnies because it’s fluffy hugging time.
This is incoherent. If you have a problem with the analogy, state it. (Note that I didn't say that anything is possible given time. I said that random processes can produce the same results as intelligent ones, given time and, ideally, a few other factors. Intelligent processes won't make you jump a mile in the air, either.)

Also, about some of your other replies: "random" and "arbitrary" are not synonyms. Choosing pi out of all possible numbers is an arbitrary decision, but that doesn't make its digits random. Once pi is chosen as the number to analyze (a decision which could be made randomly or non-randomly, and either way could be arbitrary), there is no randomness to speak of.

I think I have some handle on what you mean by "specified complexity," but I have two problems with it: first, any given arrangement generated randomly also has specified complexity, and second, you seem to think that it has something to do with "information content," which we haven't discussed at such length that I understand what you mean by it. In what way do you determine whether something has information content? Does the letter sequence "ugly" have information content? What about the letter sequence "brzydki"? What about "mimsy"?

And finally, common descent gives the reason that life-forms can be found in a nested hierarchy. That's one of the ways in which it's useful in modern biology. It also suggests why we find vestigial organs, selectively neutral traits, etc. If you read a little in a bio textbook — or, heck, the Wikipedia articles on evolution — you could find more details on this.

(Incidentally, for anyone who didn't read the previous threads, SoT and I both quite plainly spelled out why we didn't give arguments in favor of evolution, and it wasn't for lack of ability to do so.)

[ Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Thursday, January 10 2008 00:08 Profile Homepage #113
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

You contribute to that reality with your own assertion that it is absolutely human nature to kill each other and fight over things, which is just a less nice way to say we compete with each other.
I didn't say that it was human nature to compete.

quote:
What is your motivation to continually engage me, when it's been made clear long ago that we simply disagree on some very basic paradigms?
For two reasons. First, I enjoy dissecting arguments and opinions and figuring out what's wrong with them. (I've occasionally mentioned that I'm an LSAT teacher, and that's half of what the LSAT is testing: how well you can figure out what's wrong with the arguments they present.)

Second, articulating my own perspective is typically instructive for me. Examining why I think what I think usually is interesting.

EDIT: And jeez, people, can we tone down the personal attacks?

[ Thursday, January 10, 2008 00:09: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 22:47 Profile Homepage #109
People's ideas change. Cultures change, which is what you're referring to in your post. (Did you really need to cite evidence of that? I mean, honestly.) But I was referring to human nature, which isn't likely to change unless we seriously alter our own biology (which, I suppose, could happen, not soon, but not too distant, either).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 21:42 Profile Homepage #106
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Yes, Kel, you have found out my terrible secret. I fashion my view of the world and all of history based upon Reality Television.
Well, at least now we all know. :P

quote:
Aren't you missing the valid point though? What does the tremendous popularity of mean-spirited competition in Reality Television tell us about ourselves?
Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure that it is not particular to this society or time. It's fundamental in human nature, and it's not going to change for you or anyone else any time soon.

quote:
If you refer to my use of the word joyless, I am again commenting on my observation with a resulting opinion what that suggests about a person's state of being.
Yes. That doesn't make it any better.

quote:
A person's state of being kept to oneself as a concept about oneself and never actually demonstrated in relationship is quite useless, and is functionality non-existent.
Heh. The funny thing is, this probably means something to you.

quote:
Please also realize that my function in the world is not to gratify any one person in particular.
No kidding. :P

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 20:10 Profile Homepage #101
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Explain to me which law of physics currently held by science permits the spontaneous generation of matter within a body?
I was going to say that this was hilarious enough in itself to justify my previous post. Then I read what followed.

quote:
I invite you to look at the state of the world which is enthralled at present with dog eat dog competitiveness, and tell me how it's working for us.
Your description of the state of the world does not match the actual world.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to "Reality" TV.
Your conception of the state of the world is based on reality TV? Priceless, man. Priceless.

On a more serious note, it would also be gratifying to me — again, I don't know why — if you stopped making wild generalizations about others' happiness. It's condescending (and worse, illogical).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 19:34 Profile Homepage #99
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Kel - do you really think that belief that life operates by a principle of competition, rather than collaboration, does not ultimately effect all our social behavior? Social Darwinism is a product of beliefs in aspects of biological Darwinism...along with other things.
Your description of Darwinism does not match scientific understanding from any time in the recent past.

quote:
I invite you to look at the state of the world which is enthralled at present with dog eat dog competitiveness, and tell me how it's working for us.
Your description of the state of the world does not match the actual world.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 19:20 Profile Homepage #96
Synergy, it would gratifying to me — I don't know why — if you ever in your life learned the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The former does not lead inevitably, or really at all, to the latter. The fact that competition exists in nature and has been an effective tool for evolving life is not evidence that we need to model ourselves in any way on it.

[ Wednesday, January 09, 2008 19:21: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Why did Starman Get Banned? in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 18:07 Profile Homepage #22
quote:
Originally written by The Creator:

Which would make Alorael right.
Yes, in this case, but the implication (that you use or omit the article in Spanish with names in the same way that you do in English) is not. Minor detail, but what the heck, it's a message board; may as well nitpick.

I wondered if someone would miss the point. Apparently so.
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Except that Esperanto isn't real. It has the same value to the world as, say, Nicothodes' made up language.
This gets into some thorny issues. At what point does a language cease being a natural language and become a constructed one? Turkish was seriously and deliberately modified after the Ottoman Empire fell, but it developed as a natural language previously. Hebrew was once a spoken language, died out, and was revived, but the modern version is not identical to the ancient version, and someone (mostly Ben-Yehuda) had to fill in the gaps where the ancient language was not perfectly known or lacked words for modern concepts. Esperanto did not develop naturally, but it has been used for serious literary works and some people speak it fluently. Klingon didn't develop naturally, either, but some people are fluent in it.

Drawing a line in this continuum and saying that "natural languages stop here and constructed languages begin" is harder than one might naively think.

[ Wednesday, January 09, 2008 18:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Why did Starman Get Banned? in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 15:00 Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by 404 Error - PDN Not Found:

"los" is the masculine and mixed plural definite article in Spanish, which is what you should be using instead of "la" in most cases. Khyryk is a name, and therefore the "la" should be removed. You don't say, "Long live the Eric!"
Although in Spanish one does refer to "el Sr. Alorael" (or the like). But I think that rule only applies when you actually have a title in front of the name.

While we're at it, fix the conjugations of the verbs. "Viva" is singular. You need something else ("Vivan," I think, but it's been a while) for the plural.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Why did Starman Get Banned? in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 12:31 Profile Homepage #3
Because he posted what he posted in the Avernum 4 board "Avernum Poll" thread after multiple warnings and broke exactly the rule that I said that he broke in that thread.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 12:21 Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

And how would you predict pi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_%CF%80

quote:
In what way are my triangles random that a circle is not?
I didn't say that your triangles were random. It depends on exactly what you're doing. I refer you, yet again, to the usual reference to further clarify what the word "random" actually means.
quote:
I don't know that I've come across atheists that don't accept common descent.
I rest my case.

[ Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:25: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 12:02 Profile Homepage #85
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

until you can provide a single instance of an atheist scientist who agrees with anything that you're saying, I have to consider this entire discussion silly.
No problem…By the way, what if I said, “I won’t consider common descent until you can show me one of Jehovah’s Witnesses that accepts it.” Would that be logical?
The discussion is not whether evolution fits into the JW perspective of the world. The discussion is whether evolution fits into the scientific one. In the former discussion, your objection above would be reasonable, but in the current (latter) one, probably not.

I notice that you said, "No problem," and then you didn't do it. I'm waiting.

quote:
And I can tell you the next number in the ratio between my triangle legs and generate algorithms to make it. What does that have to do with whether or not something is random?
I explained that in the rest of the post. A number is not random if it can be predicted. (To be precise, I'm talking about true randomness, not pseudorandomness.)

[ Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:10: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Wednesday, January 9 2008 11:08 Profile Homepage #82
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
I'm amused that you provide this link even though you apparently haven't thought through the consequences of all the statements on the page.

"The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology." (Three citations follow.)

You might also want to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

quote:
Pi is aperiodic, but how is it not random?
There are algorithms for generating it. Random numbers should not be predictable; they should be truly probabilistic, like quantum mechanics (not, strictly speaking, like a coin flip, since one could predict the outcome of a coin flip if one knew the initial conditions of the flip and the exact properties of the coin and medium). Give me enough time, and I can tell you what is coming next in the digits of pi; I can't tell you the outcome of a measurement of an electron's position, because that's truly probabilistic.

But until you can provide a single instance of an atheist scientist who agrees with anything that you're saying, I have to consider this entire discussion silly. Of course a few evangelicals are going to put out garbage science in support of their beliefs. It's not really even worth paying attention if that's all it is.

[ Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:19: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 23:10 Profile Homepage #65
As a fun aside, "I know it when I see it" doesn't work in legal cases either. Potter Stewart later retracted it.

And when the only people who argue against evolution are heavily religious, before even listening to their arguments, I have to wonder why no secular scientist supports this.

[ Tuesday, January 08, 2008 23:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Locking in General
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 21:50 Profile Homepage #60
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Stillness is actually an advanced artificial intelligence
Takes one to know one, I guess. :P

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Avernum Poll in Avernum 4
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 19:42 Profile Homepage #25
Okay, yes, darn it, this topic dies. Starman has crossed the bounds of good taste (and the rules of this forum, namely the "intended to cause embarrassment" clause).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Avernum Poll in Avernum 4
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 17:51 Profile Homepage #16
Starman, please try to gain a sense of appropriateness. Your recent posts have demonstrated no evidence of one. I feel as though this topic has a place on these boards and shouldn't get locked, but the discussion in it has been remarkably lame, so please, let's return to the issue at hand.

I did think that A4 was missing whatever made A1-3 so neat. It was still a good game, but it wasn't gripping in quite the same way. From the little of A5 that I've played, I think A5 has it back again.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Teleportation in Blades of Avernum Editor
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 16:59 Profile Homepage #10
quote:
Originally written by Iffy:

Do you know of an example of a switch town portal with changing outdoor sections too?
Towns 32 and 33 of Exodus do this. (There's also a cut scene in the middle, but just ignore that code.)

The Land of the Dead has a bunch of town-to-town portals, too, in towns 48, 49, etc.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Exodush.. in Blades of Avernum
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Tuesday, January 8 2008 16:37 Profile Homepage #19
Well, whatever caused it, the fix is to leave town, add a spawn_creature(6) call to the INIT_STATE, re-enter, and then delete the call.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages