Profile for Drew

Error message

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
The Dingoes Ate My Baby! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 10:14 Profile #41
quote:
Originally written by Daryl Mycroft [Arancaytar:
]
For some reason, I pronounce the short form like AM(?) said: "AIR-ran".
Probably because you're an aussie. :D (Yes, it's AM, just decided to crack and change up the moniker. Points for anyone other than Kel who can tell where it's from, and no Googling...)

I can distinguish the Queensland dialect from other Australian dialects, but that's where my Australian dialect perception ends. Out of curiosity, does Australia have an equivalent to the American South, dialect-wise? Can y'all easily discern the difference in American dialects?

[ Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:16: Message edited by: Arma virumque cano... ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
The Dingoes Ate My Baby! in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 09:13 Profile #38
I would pronounce Arancaytar as "air"-"an"-"keh"-"tar". Probably incorrect, but your name does seem awfully phonetic.

"Andrew Miller", on the other hand, is pretty simple. :)

[ Thursday, February 24, 2005 09:15: Message edited by: Arma virumque cano... ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Order of SpiderWeb's Games in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 18 2005 12:28 Profile #9
Sorry for the image spam, but if he would have spent even half the time it takes to register an account and post to look for answers on the website (where he likely found the link to the forum to begin with), he wouldn't need to ask.

It's a testament to the kindness of folks like you, Alo, that you're willing to post this information for noobs, even though it's otherwise readily available and evident.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Order of SpiderWeb's Games in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 18 2005 08:25 Profile #1
IMAGE(http://www.evula.org/dragoon/pics/captain.obvious.jpg)

Try going to www.spidweb.com and checking out the website.

[ Friday, February 18, 2005 08:28: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Team America: World Police in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, February 17 2005 05:15 Profile #56
Actually, I've read that freeipods.com is legit. The deal is that everytime they give away a free iPod, they lose money. What they bank on is that no one will be able to fulfill the requirements all the way. So far, it seems to be a sustainable business model.

I agree though, this topic was long dead, and should remain so.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 15 2005 11:04 Profile #321
quote:
Originally written by Bestrafer_fin:

I am sorry, I tried to read every post, but was too tired... Read nearly half of the first page though.
But I think humans are the root of all evil. Just my opinion. An example of this, no animal kills any other creature without needing to do it, they kill it for food, or because it threatens them, but never only for fun.
My cat kills for fun. He brings his prey to our doorstep, uneaten.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, February 14 2005 06:51 Profile #319
quote:
Nonsense DOES = "false". Nonsensical things do not exist and CANNOT exist. If I am wrong then it will be an easy task for you to prove it by showing us a square shaped circle or a God who is both WITHIN our reality and outside our reality.
NO, it does NOT. NONSENSE is a LACK of MEANING, and meaning is NECESSARY for logic to make a true/false determination - ANY beginning chapter of an intro logic textbook will tell you this. What no one can verify - that a fourth dimension exists, whether god does/does not exist - is meaningless, and therefore CANNOT be said to be true or false.

The burden is on YOU to prove that god does not exist, because I am not asserting that god DOES exist, but that god COULD exist.

[ Monday, February 14, 2005 07:58: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Fallout 2 has now entered my life in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 11 2005 11:36 Profile #6
Alright, restarted with a modification of the unarmed character - went with gifted and single-handed, then tagged unarmed (duh), speech, and steal. My god, the difference that steal makes! Good times.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Favorite Movie. in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 11 2005 06:49 Profile #7
What Kel said - LotR, as well as Pirates of the Caribbean (I have a special place for it in my heart owing to the coolness of pirates and a man-crush on Johnny Depp).

Past favorites for me were The Fifth Element and O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 11 2005 06:41 Profile #310
I assert that people don't have the perceptive capability necessary to make such determinations, and it follows that what a person can't perceive he can't describe. Given that our logic relies on our capacity for observation (currently in three dimensions + time), it is thus doomed to failure because we (currently) can't observe a fourth (or other) dimension. Logic, when applied to matters of additional dimensions, will return a result of nonsense, "undefined," or what have you, because our logic is a tool rooted in our context. I think therefore that logic doesn't rule out that other dimensions could exist, so much as demonstrate that it, based on a ruleset of three dimensions + time, is the wrong tool for the job.

I can't prove that another dimension exists. You, hovever, for the same reason cannot prove that it does not exist. "Nonsense" is not the same thing as "false."

Given this inability to observe another dimension, I think the best answer we have right now is: "We don't know." Your stance seems to me to be that what we can observe - three dimensions & time - is the absolute limit of existence. Because you are incapable of proving or disproving this, however, this assertion is "nonsense" in kind; in other words, a belief. That to me seems short-sighted.

And so I propose a god that exists not only in our three dimensional + time context, but also in another dimensional sense that we cannot prove or disprove. This god could be omnipotent or very nearly so, perhaps not omniscient but omnipresent, able to observe and touch our world, moving in and out of it along this other dimension just as Sphere used height to move in and out of Flatland. I cannot prove this god exists; you cannot disprove it.

[ Friday, February 11, 2005 06:45: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, February 10 2005 09:06 Profile #308
That something is indescribable != impossible. I really don't think citing "Flatland" as an example is helping your case. At best, it demonstrates that while we're incapable (currently) of perceiving/describing a "higher" order/additional dimension, a "higher" order/dimension could exist. This was my point with the blind person analogy way back when.

[ Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:10: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, February 9 2005 07:47 Profile #304
quote:
Originally written by SkeleTony:

Read the book Flatland(free online. Do a Google for it). In it there is a universe of just two dimensions wherein these sentient 2d entities("squares", "circles" etc.) exist. One day, a 3dimensional "sphere" passes through their universe but he appears just as a 2D "circle which grows then shrinks before vanishing which is entirely conssitent with the laws of "Flatland".
Then "Sphere" decides one day to grab "Square" and show him the reality of the 3D universe outside his own. When he takes "Square" into 3D space, "Square" of course becomes "Cube" because one cannot remain bound by constraints which do not exist. When "Cube" eventaully returns to "Flatland" and becomes, once again, a "Square", he is unable to explain his experiences outside of Flatland to the other shapes. It is all gibberish and nonsense because they have no frame of reference to understand what he is saying and as he has become, once again bound by the physical laws of Flatland and 2D existence, he himself cannot make sense.

The point being made by the author is that we cannot say 'X' exists without being a part of 'X's reality(in this case Gods ourselves) OR 'X' becoming part of OUR reality(God becoming natural and mortal and mundane). Without this frame of refernce, saying "X(re:God) exists" makes no more sense than saying "Gibbleslotch varga7es!"
Thank you for this reference - this book is very intriguing.

Doesn't the example this text sets actually refute the entire basis for your assertion that God can't both exist and be logically impossible? That WE CAN'T say X exists without being a part of X's reality does not equal X CANNOT EXIST. The sphere could enter and leave the two-dimensional world at will, a seemingly impossible feat - could not the same thing occur within the three-dimensional world along a fourth dimension? What the author illustrates is not the all-binding nature of the rules but our own limits of perception. I assert that just because we cannot observe/comprehend a fourth dimension does not mean that that dimension cannot exist.

[ Wednesday, February 09, 2005 07:59: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 8 2005 13:09 Profile #294
Hmm. Well, try the deity from the deist perspective. God is an entity sufficiently powerful to create our universe, but chooses not to intervene in its creation for its own reasons (i.e. the universe as a giant snowglobe).

EDIT: (As a total aside, it took the "Monikers" topic a year and four days to reach this length! :eek: )

[ Tuesday, February 08, 2005 13:27: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 8 2005 12:10 Profile #291
I guess that line of argument just doesn't follow in my mind. "Round squares" have no meaning because these terms (of our own construction) are absolute, and so are mutually exclusive. Can the same logic be applied to an omnipotent deity and the "unliftable rock" issue? "Unliftable" is a relative description; not absolute, like a shape. Is this description meaningful when applied to infinity?

EDIT: For that matter, is the concept of infinity logically consistent?

[ Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:15: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 8 2005 11:20 Profile #289
You can walk on your hands, too. ;) Give AI another few years to develop, and maybe we'll have a self-aware machine - I would say that it's entirely possible and probable.

EDIT: SkeleTony, am I correct in stating that your old stance (of a month ago or so) was "if there is a god, then it doesn't appear to interact with the world/universe and is not worth venerating?" If this was your view, what then is the purpose of taking the harder line of "there is no god?"

[ Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:31: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Fallout 2 has now entered my life in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 8 2005 09:22 Profile #5
Decided I would go with a gifted, small framed unarmed character with tags in unarmed, sneak, and speech. So far the going has been a bit rough, though the criticals to the eyes are definitely up there. :) I'm in Modoc right now, after nearly being eviscerated during a random encounter with robbers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Fallout 2 has now entered my life in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Monday, February 7 2005 10:43 Profile #0
It being now the beginning of the second week that my fiancee is out of town, and because my Gamecube self-destructed last week (it won't read any disk anymore), in an effort to continue my spree of backsliding I've purchased Fallout 2. I know that a lot of you have lots of experience with this game. My question to you - what's your favorite character build?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
There is no love here. in Richard White Games
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, February 4 2005 09:37 Profile #0
:(
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Video Games 101 in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, February 3 2005 12:43 Profile #7
Video games haven't taught me much at all - they've mainly served as entertainment and have been a big diversion from things I probably ought to have done instead that would have improved the quality of my life greatly. No one to blame on that but me, though. :(
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Tuesday, February 1 2005 08:40 Profile #235
Solodric, it's a theoretical question, not one grounded in the capabilities of today's technology - Thuryl is using the "copying" standpoint you refer to.

And now I will go back to lurking.

[ Tuesday, February 01, 2005 08:42: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
I'm back in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 28 2005 07:28 Profile #1
A double-topic "I'm back?" Wow.

[ Friday, January 28, 2005 08:24: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Friday, January 28 2005 07:05 Profile #170
quote:
Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:

Name-dropping is essentially useless in philosophy, and I'm certainly not going to condone a 'philosophical' discussion which focuses so damned heavily on ontology; while there is a time and place for the nature of being in this kind of discussion, under most circumstances getting into that turns it into a debate-class circlejerk where actual truth becomes meaningless and the only particular criterion for success is greater experience in sophism.
Looking back, it seems he may have actually been right! ;)

SkeleTony, I can't match your knowledge of philosophy. I think, however, that I can safely assert that you can't prove that God does not exist, and it seems to me that even you admit there is some possibility (however remote) that a divine being could exist. Given that, how is your "strong" atheism anything greater than a belief?

[ Friday, January 28, 2005 08:20: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Root of all evil in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Thursday, January 27 2005 07:13 Profile #152
I think it's simply a matter of whether one believes that science and semantics has an answer on the God question. SkeleTony, you seem to believe so; I choose not to.

I disagree with the assertion that if I believe God must be a possibility, then I also must believe cartoon characters or an invisible dragon must be a possibility. It goes along with the "filling the cracks" notion: I know that a person creates cartoon characters, I can go in a garage and wave my arms around and not touch a dragon. These are very small cracks, however, easily closed because its within my means to make these determinations, using scientific observation. On the matter of divinity, however, neither you nor I are able to travel to the limits of the universe, back and forth through time, or consciously across any other dimension (it's my understanding that there may be others, based on the very minute amount of reading I've done on string theory). We do know, however, that the Earth, which pretty much incapsulates the wealth of our experiences, represents an infinitesimal amount of what's out there. Given that, what's left to fill is not a crack so much as an infinitely yawning abyss. To put it in material terms, there's an infinitely vast amount of material out there that no one knows anything about! Given that, I think it is close-minded to weigh in so conclusively on the matter.

Feeling this way, however, doesn't prevent me from usefully applying or working to advance science, or any other system or tool for that matter. I don't just say "I don't know" and leave it at that. I have a desperate need to find answers to these things, in fact, and I think that science is the best way to proceed with trying to find these answers. I believe that we are nowhere close to the pinnacle of knowledge, and I think it's close-minded to assume we are.

[ Thursday, January 27, 2005 07:17: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Repeal Amendment XXII in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 14:19 Profile #22
One potential democratic candidate that we all may want to keep an eye on is Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana. He's moderate, he's been continually reelected to office in a pretty thoroughly Republican state, he's from the heartland, and he's a bit younger looking a la Edwards.

I think it could be Bayh v. Frist. I hope that Hillary doesn't run yet - I don't think she could beat Frist with the momentum the GOP has going.

I'm crossing my fingers that this Soc. Sec. issue will rend the GOP apart. :P

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:22: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Repeal Amendment XXII in General
Drew
By Committee
Member # 4233
 written Wednesday, January 26 2005 12:35 Profile #17
quote:
Originally written by Where keen the air an pale as glass:
And the GOP, the way it is now, will be damned if they put up anyone but Bush if they can, or Rice if they can't.
Dude, there's no way this GOP would even consider Rice. She's too academic, too damaged goods from the Iraq thing, not good enough as a public speaker, and sadly, probably too not-white and too not-male.

With the way things are going currently, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Frist taking a stab at it. For Republicans right now, "it's the values, stupid!"

[ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:37: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00

Pages