> This tend towards realism was started by Counterstrike, in my opinion.
The "Red Herring of Realism" was alive _long_ before 1999 young grasshopper. Tactical Shooters are not the only way games were slowly being more realistic. (e.g. Nethack had death come very easy -- meaning your are faced with permanent consequences, and have to restart.)
Advances in (real-time) computer graphics & physics are what drove this. Then game designers got sucked into the red herring of realism without understanding what games truely are: an _alternate_ "reality". i.e. Oooh, look, it would be cool, if in driving games, you could actually _flip_ and _roll_ the cars, it would be realistic if when you shot an enemy in the leg he limped, etc. without questioning what -effect- it would have on gameplay.
Here is the scale of realism with their corresponding game labels
No Realism -------- Max Realism "Arcadey".............. "Simulation"
How _much_ realism is called for, depends on the what you are trying to _achieve_ and _express_ with your game. Most gamers find 100% simulation to be NOT FUN. Conversely, they find total lack of realism, to be "too arcadey." The popular games tend to have a healthy mix of both. Quake-style / TF2 jumping / air-control is the perfect example: When you jump, you are able to turn in mid-air 360 degrees, and even stop your acceleration. Completely unrealistic, but fun as hell.
Here is the perfect example. Almost all driving games "cheat" -- that is, they dampen the impact when you hit an enemy car -- because players would just ram the cars off the road and win. But a win without a struggle doesn't mean (or feel) anything. It's why cheating is so shallow -- it doesn't mean anything when there are no challenge(s) or obstacle(s) to overcome. So driving games cheat -- they want to provide some realism to maintain the immersion, but they can't be 100% realistic as that hinders the gameplay / fun mechanics.
Sid Meier said great game design was about keeping giving the player interesting choices to make. FPS's moved towards the model where you could only carry limited (~2) weapons -- partially because of realism, but because it forced the player to "make an interesting choice of what to carry."
Now I am not against realism in a game. There is a time and place for it _depending_ on your game design. When most people complain about realism, what they _really_ are complaining about, is that
a) they are forgetting they are playing a _game_, b) the game is not letting you do something within that world that you think should be able to do.
People want _logical_ _consistency_ in the game.
When was the last time you heard people complaining about: Magic The Gathering as being too realistic? Most people don't confuse card games with reality. But as soon as you put the game experience in a virtual 3d world, people will _immediately_ start complaining, "Hey this game isn't realistic! I can't swim, explore over this mountain, etc..."
> Now game characters are slooow, you're lucky if you're allowed to respawn, guns are, well guns and environments completely lack lava and floaty platforms.
That's because game designers and publishers are
a) drinking the red herring of realism Kool-Aid without understanding what games (and game design) are about. b) It is easier to model reality, then engage your imagination and creativity -- there is a topic in game design what I call "Frame of Reference", but that is a topic for another day. If you are interested, I'll post a follow-up.
In closing, if you are going to complain about realism, surrealism, or the lack of it (!), please research some game design history first. There is a time and a place for realism, but one must first understand the deeper problem of what the "game" is trying to represent.
> Apple can get away with a huge margin because they're the market leader and quite frankly, Apple fans have too much money.
There is more to the computer then just hardware and software young grasshopper. There is the User Experience, ergo, a consistent and well-designed UI for a touch device, or I should say, lack of them, is what makes all the other touch devices look like toys compared to the iPad. You are paying for Apple's brand because you are paying for (relatively) good UI design.
Repeat after me:
- Consumers, counter-intuitively do NOT want choice (1) which is why Android's fractured hardware is a hindrance. - Consumers, for the most part, don't give a shit about tech specs. Look at the demographics at WHO is buying the majority of iPads: people > 40 years. They just want something that works.
>> 'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.' > Does anyone have a clue what the hell he means by this quote?
In means in about a ~100 years, a human won't have the freedom to drive their car -- they will delegate the safety of driving and managing traffic density to an automated vehicle. You will put in their destination and dedicated roads that will ONLY accept computer-controlled cars will minimize the time needed to travel to your destination.
Think about it -- every car is P2P sharing road conditions, so that cars 30 mins away can start slowly down to minimize congestion.
We have the technology to make cars that are 100% computer controlled, they all travel at a set speed, minimize collisions. It is just at what price do we dream?
Today, we are on the cusp of these new ideas starting to become practical. You can look back at today and say "Yeah, that is when we starting thinking different about what the problem of traveling is really about -- maybe we should automate it to maximize efficiency"
When I worked for them I was curious how long the company had been around and how they got their start. Wikipedia is actually half decent in this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony:
Over the years, Sony has introduced these standards:
Umatic (~1968)
Betamax (1975)
Betacam (1981)
Compact Disc with Philips (1982)
3.5 inch Floppy Disk (1982)
Video8 (1985)
DAT (1987)
Hi8 (1988)
MiniDisc (~1990)
Digital Betacam (~1990)
miniDV (1992)
DVD with others (~1995)
DVCAM (1996)
Memory Stick (1998)
Digital8 (1999)
Universal Media Disc (~2003)
HDV with JVC (~2004)
Blu-ray Disc with Panasonic and others (2006)
You spend enough on R&D on FAIL, and eventually you hit the "jackpot" -- create a product that everyone wants.
> More of a rhetorical question, actually: what the hell does anybody need a six-acre lawn for? Can you honestly say that it provides you with more enjoyment than, say, a half-acre lawn?
When I grew up we had 160 acres. Our garden alone was 1 acre. Our lawn was easily between 5 and 10 acres. Not everybody lives in the city you smeg-head.
The point is, optimizing how to minimize the time spent cutting the lawn is a fantastic applied math problem!
Sony After trying to win/woo (existing) customers back by giving 2 free PS3 games + 2 free PSP games, they "expired" the game offers after about 1 month. Why the fuck weren't these available until the end of time ??
> Thank you! Now I can relax when bragging chavs wax lyrical about how much better a pad is, I knew I was right anyway because I can turn and point my gun at your head faster with a mouse than is physically possible with a pad, but now I have it confirmed
Any serious FPS gamer could of told you that. There is a reason most console FPS don't have you look up/down for the most part and limit the rotation to primary around the vertical axis.
1. It's partly because the dead zone on gamepads sucks. Quite a few years ago Bungie explained the 3 types of readings they did on the original XBox for Halo - position, velocity, and acceleration if IRC.
2. It's partly because with the mouse you have finer control of sensitivity due to acceleration for those 180-degree turns with a just a small, fast quick flick of the wrist. If you want to slowly pan across the battlefield with your sniper shot, you can make slow, long movments. With gamepads you just don't get the advantages of custom sensitivity like you do with mice.
Most mice drivers lets you set custom acceleration / dpi settings - even further widening the game between gamepads and mice.
The currrent abomination is to make the 'X' button minimize to the system tray; some programs won't even let you close them unless you start up Task Manager / Process Explorer.
> will anyone read through this code? Most definitely:
Game Programmers - Sub-Topics: Rendering, Networking, Audio, Physics, AI,
Future game programmers
Hackers
I've shipped numerous games. It is always a pleasure reading other people's game code -- just to see how they did things, read the comments, etc.
-- "Necessity is the Mother of invention, but Curiosity is the Father"
-- Michaelangel007
> I remember it was demonstrated that people living close to the grid could get free energy simply by using a coil. > It did not take long though until this became prohibited as it actually did tap the energy from the cables. It even resulted being possible to detect someone was tapping the power.
That's actually pretty cool if true. You have any links or google-fu terms to use so we can find out more about this?
> Without time, we wouldn't have consciousness as there would be no movement of matter and energy. Incorrect. In higher realms there is no need for space/time.
> the speed of light acts as a metronome by which to judge all other forms of motion in time. For the _physical_ universes, yes. But it is not the only metronome.
> I'm really tired of morons telling us GIMP can't be used for professional image work. The reality is, people who say that are complete idiots.
Why don't we examine the facts before spouting your ignorance...
So what _stable_ version of GIMP supports layer groups and reads PSDs that uses them?
I'm still waiting for Layer Styles in GIMP. Maybe you can tell me what version of GIMP can read my PSDs that uses them please?
Maybe _you're_ the idiot who doesn't understand why GIMP is not (yet) a replacement for Photoshop. GIMP can do _some_ things Photoshop an, but it is NOT YET a 100% replacement for professional work. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their ass based on _lack_ of _experience_.
Thankfully, no one gives a crap about the UID e-peen since ~2000. Makes one _almost_ miss the First Post, Hot Gritz, Natalie Portman, Penis Bir, Goatse.cx, and Ogg the Caveman posts. Almost.:-)
Lode Runner and Championship Lode Runner are gems. Hell, almost everything by BrÃderbund, such as Wings of Fury, or Spare Change are still fun games today.
Sadly, I still can't find a decent "remake" of Aquatron, or Gemstone Warrior;-(
Nothing in your post contradicts anything I have said.
If you would actually take the time to _read_ the links I provided, you would better understand the definition of a pseudo-skeptic -- namely "One who pretends to be a skeptic, but is so closed-minded that they have become a fundamentalist, unable to accept any other perspective." When you have a person who keeps changing the rules of what it means to "qualify", who has been proven to resort to lying, who is a wanna-be-scientist by not providing any references for his claims, etc. you have to seriously question the man's lack of integrity and character. The problem is that Randi's mind is already made up before he has even started. True Knowledge begins when you are ready to unlearn. Randi is a FOOL because he refuses to admit his own ignorance, and thinks he knows before he truly knows.
As a mystic I am quite well aware of the ignorance of both the Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics. There is no such [human] proof for "Faith" or "God". (One will have all the proof after they are dead, and she has quite a few surprises for them.) If somebody want to be an idiot wasting their time looking for proofs, and/or debunking proofs, then that is their prerogative. But we are not talking about the "big" proofs -- the reason no one has been "successful" providing proof is that ALL observers effect the outcome. For anyone to think the Mind behaves in a deterministic way needs to seriously open their eyes and look at the what the hell physics has been doing for the past 100 years.
James Randi is a blind man idiot unable to comprehend the world of color when it has been proven time and time again that there is significantly much more to the physical:
- Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, retired, Professor of physics at the University of Oregon's Institute of Theoretical Science for 30 years, has _also_ proven the Non Locality of Mind in the documentary "The Quantum Activist" - Peter Russell in the documentary "The Primacy of Consciousness" points out the absurdity in Materialism http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789 - The Institute of HeartMath have shown that the heart responds seconds _before_ the event happens; the brain reacts after the event. I believe this was documented in "The Living Matrix" documentary, but don't quote me. - Robert Monroe and Thomas Campbell documented that there are multiple levels of reality based on their research in "My Big Toe"
People need to find their _own_ proofs. As soon as you rely on others for "proof", you have a religion.
In my own life I have proven that minerals, plants, animals, and humanoids are the bottom 4 layers of consciousness. My wife proved her clairvoyance to me time and time again. I have proven that it is possible to transfer consciousness from one human to another. I know dowsing works because I saw when my mother dowsed for water -- my father thought this dowsing was total bullshit for a stick would turn on its "own" but when he held onto the stick so tight that it tore the outer bark off the willow stick and tore up his hands; he had to serious reconsider that "There is something going on here we don't understand." That is the true definition of a skeptic -- Not jumping to conclusions on what the cause is, but acknowledging that there is an effect, and that it needs further study.
I don't feel the need to "prove" any of the above to anyone else because
a) proof requires a frame of reference to even understand it -- namely experience -- you can't grok something you haven't experienced. This is like someone telling the blind man that he can understand color.
b) What constitutes iron-clad proof anyways? Proof is relative. What you accept for "proof" depends on your spiritual maturity. To a spiritual idiot there is no such proof BY their definition. To a true skeptic, they would be intrigued that the answer could either way.
The evidence IS there, for a real scientist to consider, IF they are able to open their eyes for a moment. I haven't seen any evidence that Randi is tired of being blind.
Slashdot Mirror
> This tend towards realism was started by Counterstrike, in my opinion.
The "Red Herring of Realism" was alive _long_ before 1999 young grasshopper. Tactical Shooters are not the only way games were slowly being more realistic. (e.g. Nethack had death come very easy -- meaning your are faced with permanent consequences, and have to restart.)
Advances in (real-time) computer graphics & physics are what drove this. Then game designers got sucked into the red herring of realism without understanding what games truely are: an _alternate_ "reality". i.e. Oooh, look, it would be cool, if in driving games, you could actually _flip_ and _roll_ the cars, it would be realistic if when you shot an enemy in the leg he limped, etc. without questioning what -effect- it would have on gameplay.
Here is the scale of realism with their corresponding game labels
No Realism -------- Max Realism .............. "Simulation"
"Arcadey"
How _much_ realism is called for, depends on the what you are trying to _achieve_ and _express_ with your game. Most gamers find 100% simulation to be NOT FUN. Conversely, they find total lack of realism, to be "too arcadey." The popular games tend to have a healthy mix of both. Quake-style / TF2 jumping / air-control is the perfect example: When you jump, you are able to turn in mid-air 360 degrees, and even stop your acceleration. Completely unrealistic, but fun as hell.
Here is the perfect example. Almost all driving games "cheat" -- that is, they dampen the impact when you hit an enemy car -- because players would just ram the cars off the road and win. But a win without a struggle doesn't mean (or feel) anything. It's why cheating is so shallow -- it doesn't mean anything when there are no challenge(s) or obstacle(s) to overcome. So driving games cheat -- they want to provide some realism to maintain the immersion, but they can't be 100% realistic as that hinders the gameplay / fun mechanics.
Sid Meier said great game design was about keeping giving the player interesting choices to make. FPS's moved towards the model where you could only carry limited (~2) weapons -- partially because of realism, but because it forced the player to "make an interesting choice of what to carry."
Now I am not against realism in a game. There is a time and place for it _depending_ on your game design. When most people complain about realism, what they _really_ are complaining about, is that
a) they are forgetting they are playing a _game_,
b) the game is not letting you do something within that world that you think should be able to do.
People want _logical_ _consistency_ in the game.
When was the last time you heard people complaining about: Magic The Gathering as being too realistic? Most people don't confuse card games with reality. But as soon as you put the game experience in a virtual 3d world, people will _immediately_ start complaining, "Hey this game isn't realistic! I can't swim, explore over this mountain, etc..."
> Now game characters are slooow, you're lucky if you're allowed to respawn, guns are, well guns and environments completely lack lava and floaty platforms.
That's because game designers and publishers are
a) drinking the red herring of realism Kool-Aid without understanding what games (and game design) are about.
b) It is easier to model reality, then engage your imagination and creativity -- there is a topic in game design what I call "Frame of Reference", but that is a topic for another day. If you are interested, I'll post a follow-up.
In closing, if you are going to complain about realism, surrealism, or the lack of it (!), please research some game design history first. There is a time and a place for realism, but one must first understand the deeper problem of what the "game" is trying to represent.
> Every game should have a story behind it: what inspired it?
How many games have you actually _shipped_?
Quick, what's the story behind Tetris, PuzzleBobble, etc.
Games != Stories.
There is a time a and place for narrative, but you are spouting more fictional bullshit by some literary poser when it is NOT needed.
> Isn't that wonderful? Everybody gets what they want.
Wonderful is relative -- there are advantages and disadvantages...
Capitalism isn't about efficiency -- it is about freedom to chose.
Meanwhile we waste thousands of man-hours duplicating efforts because everyone is trying to make a buck off the consumer.
> Apple can get away with a huge margin because they're the market leader and quite frankly, Apple fans have too much money.
There is more to the computer then just hardware and software young grasshopper. There is the User Experience, ergo, a consistent and well-designed UI for a touch device, or I should say, lack of them, is what makes all the other touch devices look like toys compared to the iPad. You are paying for Apple's brand because you are paying for (relatively) good UI design.
Repeat after me:
- Consumers, counter-intuitively do NOT want choice (1) which is why Android's fractured hardware is a hindrance.
- Consumers, for the most part, don't give a shit about tech specs. Look at the demographics at WHO is buying the majority of iPads: people > 40 years. They just want something that works.
(1) http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Yup -- we have the technology -- just not the budget it seems.
> 16billion in loses?
That's such a bullshit cop out.
WHY aren't those losses _officially_ listed on their financial books then. Oh that's right -- because they are TALKING OUT OF THEIR ASS.
>> 'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.'
> Does anyone have a clue what the hell he means by this quote?
In means in about a ~100 years, a human won't have the freedom to drive their car -- they will delegate the safety of driving and managing traffic density to an automated vehicle. You will put in their destination and dedicated roads that will ONLY accept computer-controlled cars will minimize the time needed to travel to your destination.
Think about it -- every car is P2P sharing road conditions, so that cars 30 mins away can start slowly down to minimize congestion.
We have the technology to make cars that are 100% computer controlled, they all travel at a set speed, minimize collisions. It is just at what price do we dream?
Today, we are on the cusp of these new ideas starting to become practical. You can look back at today and say "Yeah, that is when we starting thinking different about what the problem of traveling is really about -- maybe we should automate it to maximize efficiency"
> I'm wondering how Sony stays in business.
Basically, they hare a hardware R&D company.
When I worked for them I was curious how long the company had been around and how they got their start. Wikipedia is actually half decent in this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony:
Over the years, Sony has introduced these standards:
Umatic (~1968)
Betamax (1975)
Betacam (1981)
Compact Disc with Philips (1982)
3.5 inch Floppy Disk (1982)
Video8 (1985)
DAT (1987)
Hi8 (1988)
MiniDisc (~1990)
Digital Betacam (~1990)
miniDV (1992)
DVD with others (~1995)
DVCAM (1996)
Memory Stick (1998)
Digital8 (1999)
Universal Media Disc (~2003)
HDV with JVC (~2004)
Blu-ray Disc with Panasonic and others (2006)
You spend enough on R&D on FAIL, and eventually you hit the "jackpot" -- create a product that everyone wants.
> More of a rhetorical question, actually: what the hell does anybody need a six-acre lawn for? Can you honestly say that it provides you with more enjoyment than, say, a half-acre lawn?
When I grew up we had 160 acres. Our garden alone was 1 acre. Our lawn was easily between 5 and 10 acres.
Not everybody lives in the city you smeg-head.
The point is, optimizing how to minimize the time spent cutting the lawn is a fantastic applied math problem!
But maybe you like your myopic view?
Uh, you could just read the wikipoodia page ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
They should also add...
Sony
After trying to win/woo (existing) customers back by giving 2 free PS3 games + 2 free PSP games, they "expired" the game offers after about 1 month. Why the fuck weren't these available until the end of time ??
> Thank you! Now I can relax when bragging chavs wax lyrical about how much better a pad is, I knew I was right anyway because I can turn and point my gun at your head faster with a mouse than is physically possible with a pad, but now I have it confirmed
Any serious FPS gamer could of told you that. There is a reason most console FPS don't have you look up/down for the most part and limit the rotation to primary around the vertical axis.
1. It's partly because the dead zone on gamepads sucks. Quite a few years ago Bungie explained the 3 types of readings they did on the original XBox for Halo - position, velocity, and acceleration if IRC.
2. It's partly because with the mouse you have finer control of sensitivity due to acceleration for those 180-degree turns with a just a small, fast quick flick of the wrist. If you want to slowly pan across the battlefield with your sniper shot, you can make slow, long movments. With gamepads you just don't get the advantages of custom sensitivity like you do with mice.
Most mice drivers lets you set custom acceleration / dpi settings - even further widening the game between gamepads and mice.
Yeah, no kidding!
The currrent abomination is to make the 'X' button minimize to the system tray; some programs won't even let you close them unless you start up Task Manager / Process Explorer.
So much for progress on the desktop ...
> Who does this help?
People who are curious about "How Things Work", specifically, "How Games Work"
Perfect example:
quake 3 fast inverse square root
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/8/
> will anyone read through this code?
Most definitely:
Game Programmers - Sub-Topics: Rendering, Networking, Audio, Physics, AI,
Future game programmers
Hackers
I've shipped numerous games. It is always a pleasure reading other people's game code -- just to see how they did things, read the comments, etc.
--
"Necessity is the Mother of invention, but Curiosity is the Father"
-- Michaelangel007
> and it more or less reached maturity 15 years ago.
Try ~10 years. BeOS _still_ does things that most modern GUI's don't. I _don't_ want a freaking window title bar taking up the WHOLE width of the app.
> I remember it was demonstrated that people living close to the grid could get free energy simply by using a coil.
> It did not take long though until this became prohibited as it actually did tap the energy from the cables. It even resulted being possible to detect someone was tapping the power.
That's actually pretty cool if true. You have any links or google-fu terms to use so we can find out more about this?
Cheers
> Without time, we wouldn't have consciousness as there would be no movement of matter and energy.
Incorrect. In higher realms there is no need for space/time.
> the speed of light acts as a metronome by which to judge all other forms of motion in time.
For the _physical_ universes, yes. But it is not the only metronome.
> I'm really tired of morons telling us GIMP can't be used for professional image work. The reality is, people who say that are complete idiots.
Why don't we examine the facts before spouting your ignorance ...
So what _stable_ version of GIMP supports layer groups and reads PSDs that uses them?
I'm still waiting for Layer Styles in GIMP. Maybe you can tell me what version of GIMP can read my PSDs that uses them please?
Maybe _you're_ the idiot who doesn't understand why GIMP is not (yet) a replacement for Photoshop. GIMP can do _some_ things Photoshop an, but it is NOT YET a 100% replacement for professional work. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their ass based on _lack_ of _experience_.
Thankfully, no one gives a crap about the UID e-peen since ~2000. Makes one _almost_ miss the First Post, Hot Gritz, Natalie Portman, Penis Bir, Goatse.cx, and Ogg the Caveman posts. Almost. :-)
I can't believe someone compiled a compendium on this crap: http://let.sysops.be/wiki/Slashdot_trolling
Wait -- dis there darn inter-'tubes. Today's history lesson is that popular sub-culture will be documented, even 'the art of trolling on /." LOL
> it baffles me how a company like that can be so fucking daft.
Because at their core they are a Japanese company that makes hardware. They
a) Don't get the American market (due to culture/pride),
b) Don't understand Hardware+Software+User Experience like Apple.
Try working for them for a while.
Lode Runner and Championship Lode Runner are gems. Hell, almost everything by BrÃderbund, such as Wings of Fury, or Spare Change are still fun games today.
Sadly, I still can't find a decent "remake" of Aquatron, or Gemstone Warrior ;-(
Nothing in your post contradicts anything I have said.
If you would actually take the time to _read_ the links I provided, you would better understand the definition of a pseudo-skeptic -- namely "One who pretends to be a skeptic, but is so closed-minded that they have become a fundamentalist, unable to accept any other perspective." When you have a person who keeps changing the rules of what it means to "qualify", who has been proven to resort to lying, who is a wanna-be-scientist by not providing any references for his claims, etc. you have to seriously question the man's lack of integrity and character. The problem is that Randi's mind is already made up before he has even started. True Knowledge begins when you are ready to unlearn. Randi is a FOOL because he refuses to admit his own ignorance, and thinks he knows before he truly knows.
As a mystic I am quite well aware of the ignorance of both the Theists, Atheists, and Agnostics. There is no such [human] proof for "Faith" or "God". (One will have all the proof after they are dead, and she has quite a few surprises for them.) If somebody want to be an idiot wasting their time looking for proofs, and/or debunking proofs, then that is their prerogative. But we are not talking about the "big" proofs -- the reason no one has been "successful" providing proof is that ALL observers effect the outcome. For anyone to think the Mind behaves in a deterministic way needs to seriously open their eyes and look at the what the hell physics has been doing for the past 100 years.
James Randi is a blind man idiot unable to comprehend the world of color when it has been proven time and time again that there is significantly much more to the physical:
- Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, retired, Professor of physics at the University of Oregon's Institute of Theoretical Science for 30 years, has _also_ proven the Non Locality of Mind in the documentary "The Quantum Activist"
- Peter Russell in the documentary "The Primacy of Consciousness" points out the absurdity in Materialism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789
- The Institute of HeartMath have shown that the heart responds seconds _before_ the event happens; the brain reacts after the event. I believe this was documented in "The Living Matrix" documentary, but don't quote me.
- Robert Monroe and Thomas Campbell documented that there are multiple levels of reality based on their research in "My Big Toe"
People need to find their _own_ proofs. As soon as you rely on others for "proof", you have a religion.
In my own life I have proven that minerals, plants, animals, and humanoids are the bottom 4 layers of consciousness. My wife proved her clairvoyance to me time and time again. I have proven that it is possible to transfer consciousness from one human to another. I know dowsing works because I saw when my mother dowsed for water -- my father thought this dowsing was total bullshit for a stick would turn on its "own" but when he held onto the stick so tight that it tore the outer bark off the willow stick and tore up his hands; he had to serious reconsider that "There is something going on here we don't understand."
That is the true definition of a skeptic -- Not jumping to conclusions on what the cause is, but acknowledging that there is an effect, and that it needs further study.
I don't feel the need to "prove" any of the above to anyone else because
a) proof requires a frame of reference to even understand it -- namely experience -- you can't grok something you haven't experienced. This is like someone telling the blind man that he can understand color.
b) What constitutes iron-clad proof anyways? Proof is relative. What you accept for "proof" depends on your spiritual maturity. To a spiritual idiot there is no such proof BY their definition. To a true skeptic, they would be intrigued that the answer could either way.
The evidence IS there, for a real scientist to consider, IF they are able to open their eyes for a moment. I haven't seen any evidence that Randi is tired of being blind.
Nice Jefferson quote! I believe this is the "official" quote :-)
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4
James Randi is a liar, pseudo-skeptic, and wanker who pretends to be a skeptic. Why anyone would trust a magician over a REAL scientist is beyond me.
You can read all about the details here...
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm
and
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html
> SW:G and UO are barely "games"
And WoW isn't ?
How do you "win" at WoW ? How do you "lose" at WoW ?
If you don't have a winning and losing state, you don't have a game, you have a toy -- that's what all MMORPGS are -- pseudo-games -- really, toys.