Profile for KernelKnowledge12
Field | Value |
---|---|
Displayed name | KernelKnowledge12 |
Member number | 4557 |
Title | Shock Trooper |
Postcount | 264 |
Homepage | |
Registered | Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
Author | Recent posts |
---|---|
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, January 21 2005 08:24
Profile
To add on to what Macrsp wrote: Humans do not, by nature, assume, but we do, by nature, see patterns, including the truly accurate and purely coincidental. It can be put to conjecture that animals do this too, but they do not seek out the reasons for the association, so new more complex ideas can be formed. Humans can and do for good reason (already been said). These ideas (called Complex Ideas by Locke) once created should be proven to actually be true, but this sort of thinking did not even start to come about until the 17th century. Before then we assumed, and now we still do, but human evolution did not cause it, since obviously there are those who do not assume. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, January 21 2005 07:01
Profile
quote: quote:EDIT: quote:Morals (in terms of the individual) are dependent on the individual's definition of good/evil, right/wrong. Morals (in terms of a society) are dependent upon the society's collective definition of good/evil. I do not mean "collective" as in the entire society, just the group whom the society depends upon for decision making, if it exists at all. Also this topic isn't (correct me if I'm wrong) directed toward evil in humans, but towards all beings capable of it (which hasn't quite been defined yet.) [ Friday, January 21, 2005 07:23: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Thursday, January 20 2005 19:10
Profile
quote:I don't usually agree with what Hobbes says, but this seems to be an exception. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, January 19 2005 19:07
Profile
As of now I'm inclined to believe the root of all evil has to do with the formation of society, since the implicitly defined rules that a society creates serve as a definition for good and evil, among other things. Since simply having sapience does not neccessarily give a being an understanding of good and evil, it cannot be either (in its own perspective). A being can only be evil, if it knows what evil is and can therefore choose to be evil. Unless there is such a thing as an inherently evil thing. [ Wednesday, January 19, 2005 19:08: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, January 19 2005 10:03
Profile
quote:Hence the 60s. Also, I did not mean that the "Do what you want" statement as part of the cycle I wrote. Doesn't change the merit of the above quote, though. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, January 19 2005 09:44
Profile
quote:All systems do this, or at least try to. quote:Restraint leads to opression. Opression leads to revolution, and resulting is the mentioned "do what you want" philosophy. (This'll go back to restraint eventually.) Again, other types of systems stress restraint. quote:Although religion can be, and usually is, viewed as the culmination of all that is good, it can (not always) be very evil. An example of this would be the Catholic Church's medieval practices of indulgences, inquisitions, etc. The crusades are another, and the human-dictated result of the Nicene Conferences are yet antother. (The last one mainly has to do with corruption.) The basic cause for this is that religion, or more accurately organized religion, contains politics, and therefore the potential for corruption. The fact that God can be used as a justification for anything doesn't help either. Blaming religion as the root of all evil is not immature, just short-sighted. quote:Well said. quote:Same here. [ Wednesday, January 19, 2005 09:45: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, January 19 2005 07:46
Profile
quote:Do you mean that the extra time in a person's day should not exist, in that people should spend all their time on the basic neccessities of life? This would require a massive regression in technology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a very ludite/reactionary viewpoint. Either way evil would still exist (the point I believe mung was making). Its cause(s) can be found, but they cannot be eradicated. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Root of all evil in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Tuesday, January 18 2005 18:44
Profile
All systems (dealing with morals, science, whatever) are just generalities created to explain how the universe, or certain parts in it work. The aforementioned laws of physics are complex ideas created inductively based on several observations. Most moral systems (and other systems) take an opposite approach by trying to prove an assumption. They end up rationalizing. Some systems created during the Enlightenment, Rennaisance, and a few created in the east don't do this. (I'm sure I'm missing other time periods, these are just all I can think of.) These are called "philosophies" and were created through inductive reasoning. Based on this and all that was written earlier, I believe the practice of assumption is the "root of all evil," or at least contributes greatly to the spread and continuing practice of evil. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Open Source in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Monday, January 17 2005 18:43
Profile
Either way, they don't seem to be doing much work, and I'm sure there are other projects out there with the same basic goal. Thanks again. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Open Source in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Monday, January 17 2005 10:53
Profile
So a project like Achelous is perfectly legal? Thanks for all help. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Open Source in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Sunday, January 16 2005 20:16
Profile
I was recently looking into open source and I'm pretty sure I get the jist of it, but I'm still a little confused on one thing. I'm hoping someone here can help me with the following question: If a person has an open source software, then by definition someone else can take that software's source code, and sell it. ( OSI FAQ) But say said software is copyrighted, can someone else still sell it (with or without modification of any kind)? If so, is this not a copyright violation, or does open source, by definition, disallow copyrighting a work? Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Project Builder on Mac OS X in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Tuesday, December 28 2004 11:14
Profile
quote:Dev-C++ is for windows only. For OS X I couldn't find anything as powerfull ( for free ). [ Tuesday, December 28, 2004 13:30: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Project Builder on Mac OS X in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, December 24 2004 19:32
Profile
quote:Try looking at these: Bakefile QMWEdit WideStudio Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Project Builder on Mac OS X in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Thursday, December 23 2004 19:19
Profile
XCode is a free Mac OS X compiler that uses the GCC collection. Don't know much about it since I use Windows, but if it uses GCC it should be pretty good. If you end up using windows, I'd suggest using Dev-C++ (free) or if you get enough money, something from Borland. If none of these appeal to you, you could always learn how to create makefiles and compile programs using make (an extension to GCC): Makefile Tutorial (I found a much better tutorial before, but can't seem to find it again.) Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
language? in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, December 15 2004 18:22
Profile
Just remembered, in template metaprogramming, templated structs are used to create metafunctions (among other things). I think its easier on the compiler. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
language? in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Tuesday, December 14 2004 07:20
Profile
Protection is a concept that has more to do with programming style than it does programming in general. Other than idiot-proofing code (which I believe is a very important thing to do) I can't see it's other uses. If it has another use (which it should) I'd guess it have to do with extensive templating. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
language? in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Monday, December 13 2004 17:57
Profile
In C++, and in, I'm guessing, all modern C++ compilers, structs and classes are interchangeable. Anything a class can do, a struct can do (although there might be something I'm overlooking). I'm pretty sure this feature of C++ is mainly used for creating C compliant code with optional OO functionality. (DirectX does this). Because of this, the choice between using a class or a struct is mainly just a keyword choice. For me, adding OO functionality to a struct is just odd. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
language? in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Sunday, December 12 2004 18:54
Profile
quote:Jeff's code in the BoA Editor is, I'd say, 99% C-Style programming. He does use classes, which is a C++ thing, but does very little with them. There is no inheritence of any kind, no evident templating and not one of his classes goes so far to include a copy constructor. Of course this is just his editor. Jeff says in the source code this was a heavily modified version of the old BoE editor, and that if he would do it again, the source would look nothing like what it does now. Taking this into account, I seriously doubt he did his newer games in anything but C++ ( or some other OO language ). If done in C, projects that big would make for some incredibly messy code. [ Sunday, December 12, 2004 18:58: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Tell me if you like programming. . . in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Wednesday, November 24 2004 18:06
Profile
Read some of the posts before this page. There are some suggested readings/tutorials. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
Tell me if you like programming. . . in General | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Monday, November 22 2004 18:33
Profile
I've personally never learned much from an online tutorial. I learned C++ primarily through one or two books. After I got the hang of the actual language I learned to use and add on to several libraries. The book I read was entitled "Learn C++ in 24 hours," and it did a very good job of teaching the basics in a short amount of time, although the title is misleading ( and morbidly cheesy ). It took me about two weeks to learn up till and including the full power of inheritance (except maybe multiple inheritance; I can't really remember). The only thing it left out was templating, which I learned through a class, and through screwing around with the STL. Also MSDN can at times be very helpful, once you know a language. Of course, these are just what I use(d). There have to be better resources out there. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
OK, folks, looks like I can port my tools to a Mac... in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, November 19 2004 17:40
Profile
quote:If you don't want any help/suggestions, than make your program any way you see fit and stop wasting people's time. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
OK, folks, looks like I can port my tools to a Mac... in Blades of Avernum | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, November 19 2004 17:40
Profile
quote:If you don't want any help/suggestions, than make your program any way you see fit and stop wasting people's time. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
OK, folks, looks like I can port my tools to a Mac... in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, November 19 2004 13:27
Profile
quote:If you're not going to do it well, don't do it. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
OK, folks, looks like I can port my tools to a Mac... in Blades of Avernum | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Friday, November 19 2004 13:27
Profile
quote:If you're not going to do it well, don't do it. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
3D BOA Editor (Windows) in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Thursday, November 18 2004 12:59
Profile
quote:I never said it was easy. I screwed around with the original editor for a month over the summer and started working on a 3D editor using MFC/DirectX. (Before I started thinking cross-platform.) After a little I got an idea for a project that could potentially make me some money, so I dumped the editor. Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |