Profile for KernelKnowledge12

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
Root of all evil in General
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
Profile #56
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
Profile #54
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Doesn't seem like a universally acceptable definition. There are plenty of religious types around (and a few non-religious ones as well) who think the things they themselves enjoy are evil.
quote:
Thomas Hobbes, "The Elements of Law", Chapter 17, "Other Laws of Nature"

14. Every man by natural passion, calleth that good which pleaseth him for the present, or so far forth as he can foresee; and in like manner that which displeaseth him evil. And therefore he that foreseeth the whole way to his preservation (which is the end that every one by nature aimeth at) must also call it good, and the contrary evil. And this is that good and evil, which not every man in passion calleth so, but all men by reason. And therefore the fulfilling of all these laws is good in reason; and the breaking of them evil. And so also the habit, or disposition, or intention to fulfil them good; and the neglect of them evil. And from hence cometh that distinction of malum paenae, and malum culpae; for malum paenae is any pain or molestation of mind whatsoever; but malum culpae is that action which is contrary to reason and the law of nature; as also the habit of doing according to these and other laws of nature that tend to our preservation, is that we call VIRTUE; and the habit of doing the contrary, VICE. As for example, justice is that habit by which we stand to covenants, injustice the contrary vice; equity that habit by which we allow equality of nature, arrogance the contrary vice; gratitude the habit whereby we requite the benefit and trust of others, ingratitude the contrary vice; temperance the habit by which we abstain from all things that tend to our destruction, intemperance the contrary vice; prudence, the same with virtue in general. As for the common opinion, that virtue consisteth in mediocrity, and vice in extremes, I see no ground for it, nor can find any such mediocrity. Courage may be virtue, when the daring is extreme, if the cause be good; and extreme fear no vice when the danger is extreme. To give a man more than his due, is no injustice, though it be to give him less; and in gifts it is not the sum that maketh liberality, but the reason. And so in all other virtues and vices. I know that this doctrine of mediocrity is Aristotle's, but his opinions concerning virtue and vice, are no other than those which were received then, and are still by the generality of men unstudied; and therefore not very likely to be accurate.

EDIT:
quote:
Another note about the whole morality/good/evil thing. As some have already said, there is no such thing as "evil" except as a subjective assessment of an event or behavior. So what we are left with is the concept of morals or ethics.
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
Profile #45
quote:
Thomas Hobbes, "The Elements of Law", Chapter 7 :

"3. Every man, for his own part, calleth that which pleaseth, and is delightful to himself, GOOD; and that EVIL which displeaseth him: insomuch that while every man differeth from other in constitution, they differ also one from another concerning the common distinction of good and evil. Nor is there any such thing as agathon aplox, that is to say, simply good. For even the goodness which we attribute to God Almighty, is his goodness to us. And as we call good and evil the things that please and displease; so call we goodness and badness, the qualities or powers whereby they do it."

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
Profile #39
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
Profile #34
quote:
Originally written by Macrsp:


"Do what you want" also leads to revolution. It breeds weakness into empires and is very important in the rise and fall of nations. Part the challenge for any society is to balance "restraint" with "freedom" in an equilibrium so that the people remain "strong" but happy.

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
Profile #32
quote:
Originally written by 2disbetter:

Religion if anything provides a sense of order to an otherwise chaotic human order.
All systems do this, or at least try to.

quote:

Restraint has become the words of old boring men.

The only thing countering this in todays society is religion.


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:

Blaming religion as the root of all evil is not only immature, but very very not well thought out.

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:

... and furthermore that evil is not an item or thing, it comes from individuals. Murder would not happen had someone not committed it, and this line of reasoning can go on and on forever. We as humans are accountable for our own actions... whethey they be good or bad. My personal beliefs are that there is a head of evil... we all know its name.

To blame something or someone other than ourselves for evil is simply missing the point.


Well said.

quote:

BTW this post is not to belittle or demoralize anyone elses beliefs. I respect everyones opinions. Its variety that gives the world its flair.

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
Profile #28
quote:
Originally written by FatBatMonkey:

Actually, the modern cause of evil is boredom. We are all supposed to live in a modern age where life is easy. Unfortunately, in the average area, there are not enough amenities to take care of all the extra time. So we are used to squandering and wasting time.

If everyone had something to do, then there wouldn't be a group of people sitting around and thinking about declaring war on another country or going out and blowing up a train.

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
Profile #24
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
Profile #7
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
Profile #4
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
Profile #0
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
Profile #16
quote:
Originally written by Eggs with Toast:

I am not a programmer, but here is the link to Dev- C++

Dev C++

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
Profile #13
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:


Does anyone know of a program other than Project Builder that I can get cheap or for free for a Mac that will be easier than using a text editor?

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
Profile #8
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
Profile #17
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
Profile #13
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
Profile #10
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
Profile #4
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:


EDIT: As a sidenote, Arenax claimed that as he was looking through the BoA Editor source code, he noticed that at some point Jeff had actually switched from C to C++. Has anyone else observed this?

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
Profile #53
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
Profile #40
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
Profile #21
quote:
Originally written by Arenax:

Are you guys actively trying to get me not to do this?
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
Profile #21
quote:
Originally written by Arenax:

Are you guys actively trying to get me not to do this?
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
Profile #13
quote:
Originally written by Arenax:


And I'm sure you just glossed over that I didn't care to spend weeks doing it, but hey.

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
Profile #13
quote:
Originally written by Arenax:


And I'm sure you just glossed over that I didn't care to spend weeks doing it, but hey.

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
Profile #19
quote:
Originally written by Dastal:

KernelKnowledge, if it's such an easy process, and you have already figured it out, you should have no problem quickly converting the Mac 3D BoA editor to Windows.
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

Pages