all_shall_perish

so i know how to setup the database: what specific statistics would you like to keep for squads and players?

thanks, i'll get to work on it soon after i've planned some more of the module out.

that sounds fine for now, i'll start drawing up some plans for it, let me know all the login information i need. thanks. EDIT: just got thinking about it, do you plan to use ASSS 1.4.3 or 1.4.4? i can do either.

do you mean it just needs to handle registering, and the statistics !@#$%^&*ociated with games. or does it actually need to control the game? also, for the website, do you need pages made to display that information or you already have them set up?

Your sf.net UNIX username: allshallperish Languages you know: C/C++, Java, Ruby, Python What you are interested in doing to help (general area -e.g. networking/3d graphics/user interface, not specifics) (if not sure, leave blank): General (whatever I am able to contribute) Database work if any Your programming strengths (special areas of expertise): Most fluent in C/C++ in general, nothing special. Familiariy with SVN: Basic functionality, have worked with it before on a few small projects

i think it'd be rather difficult to do the fullscreen image of warping (although it would be very cool) due to the size of the file itself and also difference in player resolutions. as for the warp points, as said earlier, those will have to be controlled autonomously. if you need help with the modules/bot-plugins to do this sort of thing, i could probably be of !@#$%^&*istance. just let me know.

or just not a complete idiot considering he makes no attempts at being subtle i think the way he wrote the trilogy was rather...planned and considering he's come out on many occasion saying they have nothing to do with religion means you're looking into the books too deeply and finding things which the author did not intend in the first place.

agreeable. i'd think that even younger teenagers should be able to see this movie though without fear of being brainwashed. and for the younger crowd, i'd think they would just see this as another kid's fantasy movie.

I've been seeing a lot of coverage concerning this movie in the media and am surprised that nobody has mentioned anything on here yet. A news article which sums up the "controversy" can be found here: Jeannie Babb Taylor: The Golden Comp!@#$%^&* -- Pointing kids to atheism? I myself, if not obvious by now, am against nearly all organized religions. I find the argument the Catholic/Christian community is using to be somewhat ridiculous and nearly conspiracy theory like. I don't really think the movie (or the book) is out to get Christians or Catholics at all but is just presenting another side to the argument. I would think that people like the Catholic league and others would be more than happy to present the other side of the argument. At least, the "different view" of things is always the argument used when they attempt to bring the creationism/intelligent design ideas into public schools. So I suppose those communities REALLY only care about the other side of the story when that story is their faith. In the case of children being "baited" into seeing the movie, I think that's also a silly idea. Being anti-religious, if I did have children and they wanted to go see a religious movie, say, the Chronicles of Narnia, I wouldn't have an issue with that. I would encourage them to see that movie. I don't really want to be the determining factor behind what my children believe in when it comes to religion, I want them to be able to decide for themselves. I'd say the churches telling people not to see the movies and read the books because they have "atheist" agendas is no better than !@#$%^&*embling those books and movies into a pile and setting fire to them. It's almost as if the churches are afraid of something, like this single movie will debunk their entire faith.

only half of this is true and i think you need to read a chemistry book or study up on thermodynamics; energy isn't just held on to as you are making it out to be.

why? it's free energy for all we care.

indeed

Sounds like Canada needs a taste of the democracy America has to offer.

exactly The more I see you reference articles thunderjam, the more I realize you are at least somewhat (but more probable: entirely) misinformed. Filling those gaps with "God did it" doesn't really make any more sense too me though. God creates more questions than he answers I guess because he works in "mysterious" ways right? The truth of the matter is, to deny the existence of God(s) is no better than acknowledging their existence: you simply don't know either way and there is no way you can know. To claim that you know otherwise is outrageous and you will be labeled incredibly ignorant and insane by those who actually understand this problem. Believe in whatever you want to believe, but at the end of the day you have to be able to say "I could be wrong. This is just my best guest."

Unfortunately, I, nor you, have the answers past this life. To claim that you have the answers about things you, in reality, know nothing about all because you read some rule book written by man is fairly insane. "The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it." ~Robert G. Ingersoll All the claims I've seen you make in defense of your God are backed by the Bible and the word of God. Unfortunately, that kind of logic only works for you and the others that follow the word of God, so you haven't proven much to the rest of the world besides that the fact that, again, you're probably insane. You also mentioned that it would be a sad affair that some of us non-believer folk would raise children. On the contrary, it is a very sad and disgusting affair that you yourself will (or maybe already have) brainwash your children with this faith you take to be truth. Rather than bless them with free thought you'd rather !@#$%^&* them to a faith based on hypocrisy, fallacies, circular logic, and hate. The churches want donations because the priests live off of them. It should be expected that the poor will preach charity. It is very disappointing to see such human potential wasted when people let greedy hypocrites, called priests, control their minds. "Creationist make is sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night" ~Isaac Asimov I guess it depends on which you find to be more ridiculous. If you ask me, creationism is a pretty ridiculous notion based on the in-turn ridiculous idea of a God. Evolution on the other hand was a well thought out theory based on controlled data collected over many many many years and analyzed in both a quan!@#$%^&*ative and qualitative fashion. (No longer directed at thunderjam) Creationism is the one silver bullet Christians and the like hold because they can simply say "oh well God knew that was going to happen and he did it." Which means, to them anyways, that their religion cannot be dis proven. This is a great security blanket to hold onto until you realize that your religion and the word of God can't be proven either so you've still just got a story written in a book, by man. Sometimes I wish that I was actually a man of faith because it tends to be a lot easier to p!@#$%^&* through this life blindly and without thought than think about the reality and practicality of such topics.

all the stuff i did for complex is here: http://allshallperish.no-ip.org/sswiki/...&*S/Complex i haven't worked on it in about a month now. just waiting for creatix to get his server up and running

not to specifically target you thunderjam, i am just going to continue off of it. the problem with labels is that they are typically mis-interpreted by those who label themselves. labels also tend to be gross generalizations and shouldn't be taken too seriously or followed too strictly.

atheism does not mean you do not believe in god. atheism is the lack of belief in higher beings. to not believe in higher beings is to deny their existence. to be atheist means you don't believe either way.

atheism is the complete, 100% absence of belief in god(s). atheism is the exact opposite of theism (hence the prefix of the letter 'a') thus, for the purposes of this poll, the options "none" and "atheist" are equivalent. to believe in a god or gods, but not tie yourself to any sort of organized religion can be considered simply theism. those who follow religions more closely can also be classified as theist however.

Mostly just some clarifications i feel should be made. first off is that E=mc^2 isn't directly responsible for deducing m!@#$%^&* becomes infinite, although the equations are derived from E=mc^2, it has more to do with relativistic mass I'm not sure whether you mean 99.99999% or 99.99999% (repeating decimal). In the case of the latter, the repeating decimal is actually equivalent to 100%, which would mean the m!@#$%^&* became "inifinite" or in reality, 0. In the case of the former, the magnitude of increase in size would be much much much much larger than 430 considering the limit of relativistic m!@#$%^&* is divergent. That being said, I question the sources which were used to form your original proposition(s). There are also two major theories of what time really is. The most popular is that of Newtonian-time which says that time is a fundamental construct of the universe, and events must happen in a sequential order. This theory also states that time is a measurable quan!@#$%^&*y. The second major theory is that time is simply a construct made by man which attempts to quantify the duration of events, but in reality is entirely relativistic and immeasurable without context. I myself believe more readily in the latter. When approaching fractions of the speed of light, it cannot really be said that time slows down for you. Time "moves" at the exact same rate as before you were put into motion. If you were to travel at the speed of light for you entire life, you would experience no difference in lifetime. The idea of time "slowing down" is also entirely relativistic. Time only slows down in an observers eyes, or, they would only see the difference if they were not traveling at the same rate. If both you and the observer died on the same day and lived to be years old, you would have both lived years of what we know as "time". However, from your point of view, the observer was only alive for a small fraction of your life. From the observers point of view, you lived much longer.

not sure what you guys want to do with the wiki. i can set up access control like i said previously so that only dev-team members can modify their respective projects. this allows for files to be uploaded with do!@#$%^&*entation as well. the general public can also view all projects to download the source/binaries or read do!@#$%^&*entation. an example of a project can be seen here: http://allshallperish.no-ip.org/sswiki/...&*S/Complex

i have no issue with debate, but only when it is rationale and not just slinging worthless "facts" and mud around. the major point of numero 4 wasn't so much that people shouldn't give a hoot what everyone else thinks, but rather how does what they believe effect you? in most cases it doesn't effect you at all. however, i can see how it is contradicting. this is essentially a form of what is called skepticism. that skepticism says that for something to be considered "true" or to be a "fact" it must have been established by other previously "true" statements or "facts". In turn, those statements must then be "true" or "factual". This cycle continues on for an indefinite time leading to the inability to know anything. However, people would find it hard to function if we couldn't assume things were true, so as a social construct we simply agree that statements are true like "1 + 1 = 2" and "the gr!@#$%^&* is green." I agree mostly with skepticism but out of convenience it can't be taken too seriously too often.

that actually isn't proof at all, those brain waves only tell other people that you're not dreaming. but how do you know they aren't just part of your dream. how can you tell the brain waves themselves aren't part of your dream?

for that to carry any weight it depends on what was actually proven true. if they proved jesus rose from the dead, then ok, we're getting somewhere. if they proved a river existed where they said it did, then who cares? and to help to re-iterate my last post in a more philosophical manner. do you have "scientific" proof that you're not dreaming right now? no, so you can't p!@#$%^&* judgment on whether or not you are dreaming either way due to a lack of evidence. This literally means that you don't know, as in you can't say anything about the conclusion only the hypothesis.

This is what the majority of you must do: 1.) Do some research on the contemporary philosophical definition of knowledge and realize you know nothing. Then realize that everything you think you know is really an !@#$%^&*umption that holds true in most cases. 2.) Take this realization and apply it to the very abstracted idea of most religions. Then realize that you still know nothing, and that all of those words in all of those books (which were written by man in the first place) are still !@#$%^&*umptions. 3.) Go to your local library and get your hands on a decent sized dictionary (the 200 lb Webster on the podium will do fine). Look up the words "atheist" and "agnostic" and realize that you've been using them entirely incorrectly and sometimes contradicting yourself (but mostly just looking like a misinformed fool: ie "The Atheist religion"). 4.) Stop caring about what other people believe. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind about anyone's belief. You don't believe in something for anyone else but yourself so keep it personal. To call anyone else wrong about topics you know nothing about (ie. higher beings) is pure insanity. EDIT: Oh by the way, that newspaper article is a fake, the source doesn't exist.