Games like Duelyst are flying the flag for well made pixel art just fine. It seems to me that one developer has been having problems with their pixel art, and is projecting that onto the rest of the industry. THe Pixel art in Duelyst was actually one of the main things that had attracted me to the game in the first place. The fact that I found the game enjoyable *after* playing it was practically a bonus.
Also, MInecraft is hugely popular and could be considered under the pixel art category, look closely at the textures on the blocks, they look like pixels to me (or more accruately texels...but who is being that pedantic...).
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as the tooth fairy.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as Santa.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as the FSM.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as a god named Thor.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as (insert any god here).
Atheism employs no belief or faith. None. Zip. Nada. If it did, it wouldn't be atheism. Stop propagating an incorrect statement.
Ok, let's get something clear: giving to your church =! giving to a charity.
A christian giving 10% of the money they earn to their church is most definitely not a definition of charity, but more akin to giving money to a club that you are a part of. I give various percentages on my money to different things I am a part of too but that doesn't make it charity. Since church "donations" are essentially a black hole, it is almost impossible to actually know how much really goes to charity, and how much goes to increasing the wealth of the church. But as someone who used to be a part of a church, from what I saw, I'd estimate less than 5% of the money the church received actually went to true charitable activities such as feeding the poor, etc.
I wonder what the actual percentages christians giving to charity are, and whether it is more or less than atheists. As an atheist I donate to charitable activities, and I certainly know others who do as well. But of course that is anecdotal.
Moral absolutism is even more absurd...the idea that everyone around the world in all different cultures over the entire history of humanity somehow follows the same set of morals is such a leap of the imagination, that it stands out as fiction.
Human societies have been defining relative morals since there were societies of humans, whether you like it or not.
From what I've seen, Korean Christians are a lot more full on than Christians I have encountered in other countries. Example:
* First a disclaimer: I lived in Korea for 4 years, and I am married to a Korean.
One of my wife's relatives passed away while we were living in Korea, so we went to attend the funeral. Approximately half of the family was devout Christian, and the other half were mild Buddhists / agnostics. Because the person who died was Buddhist, it was decided by the Buddhist side of the family to have the funeral in a Buddhist format, which might I add, has been practically the cultural standard for hundreds of years in Korea.
But the Christian side would have absolutely none of it, not even to be respectful to the Buddhists, which was a source of contention at the funeral. They waited until the end of the ceremony, not taking part in any of the prayers, or even the the respectful bows that are common enough, then begun their loud prayers and other Christian themed actions.
I am an atheist, but I knew better than to shove my (lack of) beliefs upon others, and just go with the flow at the funeral, why can not others do the same? To this day that funeral is still a source of discontentment between the two sides.
I was thinking the same thing. I work in the VFX industry, and I can see absolutely no future without PC's in this industry alone. Personally, for my last piece of new hardware, I moved back from an uber powerful laptop (heavy weight, 17" screen, etc.), to a desktop at roughly half the price with almost twice the specs, then I threw two 24" monitors in for good measure. I know others who have also recently made a similar move back to the PC (or PC like device).
Still not a fair comparison, you could not upgrade TV's, merely fix them. So you are calling late 30's youth, thanks very much, it's been a while since I have been called young:)
Not a fair comparison. The history of laptops has had replaceable parts, TV's never have.
Laptops having replaceable parts has saved me thousands of dollars and is a cheap means of extending the life of hardware...it's definitely a selling point for me and a lot of other people.
I am glad someone else is thinking like this, as I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that humans are a part of nature, thereby whatever we do is natural in itself.
If we pollute this planet and kill ourselves (and a good deal of the species on this planet), then so be it. The earth will continue without us, and new types of life will take our place. It is all part of nature balancing itself out.
Now that is not to say that we should pollute as much as we want, on the contrary, I am hugely in favour of renewable energy, reducing waste, maintaining clean air and keeping our parks green. But when people constantly label what humans do as non-natural processes, they miss the point that they are a part of nature too, and this creates a distance to the notions of maintaining a healthy environment for many generations to come.
I know it is not practical, but change your legal system to a loser pays one like Australia. Then it matters not if the amount owed is a few thousand or even a few hundred.
>Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.
This sentence is fundamentally incorrect. The dictionary meaning of the suffix "dis" is "the opposite or absence of". Therefore "disbelief" is the opposite or absence of belief. "Absence" can be described as a lack of something. Thus "disbelief" is essentially "a lack of belief".
The dictionary meaning of the word "disbelief" is the rejection of belief. How you think that disbelief is a belief is beyond me...
You talk of "maybe this", or "maybe that", but until there is proof of evidence for what ever you want to assert is true, then it is not, no belief required.
It is not up to the person to prove something is untrue, it is up to the person to prove something is true.
A new tactic of religious followers I have seen lately is to try and elevate atheists to the same level of what is "unknowable" (and I use that term loosely) as themselves, and it is maddening. I disbelieve in many things that I know to be untrue: unicorns, dragons, FSM (sorry to all the Pastafarians out there!), teapots circling the sun, etc.
The sheer amount of things to disbelieve in is absolutely infinite, there for it is safe to say to disbelieve in it all as a starting point, unless there is proof for it's existence.
As a CG artist, I can tell you that I have been producing photoreal imagery for almost a decade now. We are already past the point where CG can replace a good photo.
For example, in The Avengers, during the final battle sequence, most of the shots in the city are 100% CG, background buildings and all. Even in many of the "non FX" type films, I can assure you there are lot's of CG going on. Which is why I love it when people tell me that they hate CG films because it's so obvious, then I give them a quick list of films they have seen and give them examples where they have watched CG without even knowing it.
Actually, a more correct ice cream analogy would be if you ate your favourite ice cream flavour every single day until you become sick of the flavour, and then was forced to eat it some more.
Once you implement more security, it is extremely unlikely that it will be rolled back in the future. So basically, once it's here, it's here to stay for good. The government probably won't stop until every door is a scanner.
As far as the industry is concerned, Pixar actually pay about 20% - 30% less than most of the other high profile studios (Dreamworks, ILM, Digital Domain, etc.)
It's common knowledge that one does not go work at Pixar for the money.
Slashdot Mirror
The in-game graphics are all pixel art, and they are very well animated.
Games like Duelyst are flying the flag for well made pixel art just fine. It seems to me that one developer has been having problems with their pixel art, and is projecting that onto the rest of the industry. THe Pixel art in Duelyst was actually one of the main things that had attracted me to the game in the first place. The fact that I found the game enjoyable *after* playing it was practically a bonus.
Also, MInecraft is hugely popular and could be considered under the pixel art category, look closely at the textures on the blocks, they look like pixels to me (or more accruately texels...but who is being that pedantic...).
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as the tooth fairy.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as Santa.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as the FSM.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as a god named Thor.
It doesn't require an act of faith to assert there is no such thing as (insert any god here).
Atheism employs no belief or faith. None. Zip. Nada. If it did, it wouldn't be atheism. Stop propagating an incorrect statement.
Ok, let's get something clear: giving to your church =! giving to a charity.
A christian giving 10% of the money they earn to their church is most definitely not a definition of charity, but more akin to giving money to a club that you are a part of. I give various percentages on my money to different things I am a part of too but that doesn't make it charity. Since church "donations" are essentially a black hole, it is almost impossible to actually know how much really goes to charity, and how much goes to increasing the wealth of the church. But as someone who used to be a part of a church, from what I saw, I'd estimate less than 5% of the money the church received actually went to true charitable activities such as feeding the poor, etc.
I wonder what the actual percentages christians giving to charity are, and whether it is more or less than atheists. As an atheist I donate to charitable activities, and I certainly know others who do as well. But of course that is anecdotal.
It could have been a juice bar...?
There is no right and wrong. There is only your right and your wrong, that's the whole point.
For example, Hindus think it is wrong to eat cows. I think it's right to eat them. There are no absolutes.
Moral absolutism is even more absurd...the idea that everyone around the world in all different cultures over the entire history of humanity somehow follows the same set of morals is such a leap of the imagination, that it stands out as fiction.
Human societies have been defining relative morals since there were societies of humans, whether you like it or not.
From what I've seen, Korean Christians are a lot more full on than Christians I have encountered in other countries. Example:
* First a disclaimer: I lived in Korea for 4 years, and I am married to a Korean.
One of my wife's relatives passed away while we were living in Korea, so we went to attend the funeral. Approximately half of the family was devout Christian, and the other half were mild Buddhists / agnostics. Because the person who died was Buddhist, it was decided by the Buddhist side of the family to have the funeral in a Buddhist format, which might I add, has been practically the cultural standard for hundreds of years in Korea.
But the Christian side would have absolutely none of it, not even to be respectful to the Buddhists, which was a source of contention at the funeral. They waited until the end of the ceremony, not taking part in any of the prayers, or even the the respectful bows that are common enough, then begun their loud prayers and other Christian themed actions.
I am an atheist, but I knew better than to shove my (lack of) beliefs upon others, and just go with the flow at the funeral, why can not others do the same? To this day that funeral is still a source of discontentment between the two sides.
I was thinking the same thing. I work in the VFX industry, and I can see absolutely no future without PC's in this industry alone. Personally, for my last piece of new hardware, I moved back from an uber powerful laptop (heavy weight, 17" screen, etc.), to a desktop at roughly half the price with almost twice the specs, then I threw two 24" monitors in for good measure. I know others who have also recently made a similar move back to the PC (or PC like device).
Still not a fair comparison, you could not upgrade TV's, merely fix them. So you are calling late 30's youth, thanks very much, it's been a while since I have been called young :)
Not a fair comparison. The history of laptops has had replaceable parts, TV's never have.
Laptops having replaceable parts has saved me thousands of dollars and is a cheap means of extending the life of hardware...it's definitely a selling point for me and a lot of other people.
I am glad someone else is thinking like this, as I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that humans are a part of nature, thereby whatever we do is natural in itself.
If we pollute this planet and kill ourselves (and a good deal of the species on this planet), then so be it. The earth will continue without us, and new types of life will take our place. It is all part of nature balancing itself out.
Now that is not to say that we should pollute as much as we want, on the contrary, I am hugely in favour of renewable energy, reducing waste, maintaining clean air and keeping our parks green. But when people constantly label what humans do as non-natural processes, they miss the point that they are a part of nature too, and this creates a distance to the notions of maintaining a healthy environment for many generations to come.
I know it is not practical, but change your legal system to a loser pays one like Australia. Then it matters not if the amount owed is a few thousand or even a few hundred.
>Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.
This sentence is fundamentally incorrect. The dictionary meaning of the suffix "dis" is "the opposite or absence of". Therefore "disbelief" is the opposite or absence of belief. "Absence" can be described as a lack of something. Thus "disbelief" is essentially "a lack of belief".
The dictionary meaning of the word "disbelief" is the rejection of belief. How you think that disbelief is a belief is beyond me...
I am not confusing anything.
You talk of "maybe this", or "maybe that", but until there is proof of evidence for what ever you want to assert is true, then it is not, no belief required.
It is not up to the person to prove something is untrue, it is up to the person to prove something is true.
Actually, he hasn't been officially charged yet.
You didn't search well enough, this story was posted on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/1335251/pakistani-court-rules-on-internet-censorship-unconstitutional
A new tactic of religious followers I have seen lately is to try and elevate atheists to the same level of what is "unknowable" (and I use that term loosely) as themselves, and it is maddening. I disbelieve in many things that I know to be untrue: unicorns, dragons, FSM (sorry to all the Pastafarians out there!), teapots circling the sun, etc.
The sheer amount of things to disbelieve in is absolutely infinite, there for it is safe to say to disbelieve in it all as a starting point, unless there is proof for it's existence.
As a CG artist, I can tell you that I have been producing photoreal imagery for almost a decade now. We are already past the point where CG can replace a good photo.
For example, in The Avengers, during the final battle sequence, most of the shots in the city are 100% CG, background buildings and all. Even in many of the "non FX" type films, I can assure you there are lot's of CG going on. Which is why I love it when people tell me that they hate CG films because it's so obvious, then I give them a quick list of films they have seen and give them examples where they have watched CG without even knowing it.
No, what it means is that instead of hiring a local photographer at local rates, you hire a local CG artist at local rates.
Which god(s)?
For most digital projectors, no upgrade is needed as most can project up to 120fps currently.
Actually, a more correct ice cream analogy would be if you ate your favourite ice cream flavour every single day until you become sick of the flavour, and then was forced to eat it some more.
Once you implement more security, it is extremely unlikely that it will be rolled back in the future. So basically, once it's here, it's here to stay for good. The government probably won't stop until every door is a scanner.
As far as the industry is concerned, Pixar actually pay about 20% - 30% less than most of the other high profile studios (Dreamworks, ILM, Digital Domain, etc.)
It's common knowledge that one does not go work at Pixar for the money.