Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » don't ask don't tell
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442299 is a reply to message #441534] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 14:46   |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Stfu, you're joking around whilst the poor guy doesn't know what's going on.
Really though, this topic should be split so we can discuss God's omnipotence B-)
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442307 is a reply to message #442299] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 19:30 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:46 |
Really though, this topic should be split so we can discuss God's omnipotence B-)
|
No! Let's not split the topic. This side discussion of "omnipotence" perfectly shows that theists can only debate a topic they are comfortable with. Why and how? Easy: when debating "omnipotence" theists don't have to deal with the hard parts, ie, is this god even real in the first place? are the literary works that they base their stupid assumptions on within sound reason? Are they uniform in providing a homogeneous data source about the "god" in question? Are the authors of these works confirmed and identified and reliable individuals? And most importantly, what is the seniority level of the religion compared with other competing religions?
Oh not at all; the main question ignores all these PREREQUISITES and so, it makes no sense to discuss the "omnipotence" of ANY god in the first place. And since theists are never asked to show these preliminary requisites, they take great pleasure in wallowing in their delusional bullshit like they are doing here in a mediocre subtopic. Then again, that's what theists are good at: spinning bullshit.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:41 |
Contradictory? I don't want to discuss homosexuality with an attitude like yours. Simple as that, buddy.
Simply, nobody can see whether or not you're right (and I do say either of us could be) because of all of your flaunting of how "in the right" you are and how we are all "a bunch of closed-minded bigots".
Maybe when you learn to "debate" and not "flame and taunt" you might get people willing to discuss it on your preferred level. Until then... 
|
If your excuse to not defend your postition was because I butthurt you, then your are lying (not surprising since its you) thru your teeth as you could have just as easily responded to Spoony or NukeIt15.
anyway:
Starbuzzz: Here's my stand and here are the reasons to back it up soundly.
Altzan: I am insulted by the way you said it and so won't reply. also I maybe right too!
so there you have it everyone, the entire debate is dogma vs reason; on the side of reason, one side has offered concrete reasoning to back up their assertions meticulously. On the side of dogma and despite faced with decimating irrefutable reason, a vile indoctrinated individual can just throw up his hands in the air and say he is still right without offering any rebuttal.
We are perfectly convinced now.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:41 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 04:00 |
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35 |
Quote me where I said I support those laws. Go on.
|
This coming from someone who said a few months back that not setting up such laws and agreeing to them is "partaking/aiding in such sin." I blame this on either dishonesty or poor memory.
|
I'm not surprised in the least. Honestly, what ISN'T to blame for all of the things you despise?
|
Changes the subject with irrelevant question after prompt rebuttal of previous one-liner.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 09:41 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 06 January 2011 01:47 |
You can't draw a square circle. That's not a paradox, that's just nonsensical. But an item has weight; it can weigh so much one cannot lift it or it can weigh so little that anyone can. A heavy item is not nonsense.
|
Sure it isn't nonsense. Expecting a non-physical being to "be able to lift a rock or not" is nonsense.
|
No, it's not considering this is the same "non-physical being" that had to:
-rest on the 7th day after 6 days of shooting out lame one-liners (1 lame one-liner a day).
-feel the need to walk in the garden in the cool of the day
-screw up the human language because he was scared shitless of humans unitedly building a tower to reach him in the clouds and kicking his ass
-send down "chariots of fire" to pick up VIP's (Elijah)
Most often, he was probably some kind of lame alien with obvious limitations. "Omnipresent" and "omnipotent" were words that theologians grabbed and zealously attached to their god. They failed.
ps: read your bible without skipping a single verse.
[Updated on: Fri, 07 January 2011 19:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442309 is a reply to message #442307] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 20:07 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
because I butthurt you
|
Keep at it, good chum! Someone might believe you eventually.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
on the side of reason, one side has offered concrete reasoning to back up their assertions meticulously.
|
That's a pathetic laugh. There's nothing "concrete" or "meticulous" about your hate-babble.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
Changes the subject with irrelevant question after prompt rebuttal of previous one-liner.
|
Fight fire with fire, I say.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
No, it's not considering this is the same "non-physical being" that had to:
-rest on the 7th day after 6 days of shooting out lame one-liners (1 lame one-liner a day).
-feel the need to walk in the garden in the cool of the day
-screw up the human language because he was scared shitless of humans unitedly building a tower to reach him in the clouds and kicking his ass
-send down "chariots of fire" to pick up VIP's (Elijah)
|
Seriously? He doesn't have to be a physical being to do any of that.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442313 is a reply to message #442309] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 21:16 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 21:07 |
nothing "concrete" or "meticulous" about your hate-babble.
|
Hate, eh? Now that's a fundamentalist religious mind, right there. Your parents and church did a damn good job allright.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 21:07 |
Seriously? He doesn't have to be a physical being to do any of that.
|
Exactly, so why did "he" freak out at mere humans building a tower to reach him in the clouds? Why so scared? I would think a spirit god or an interchangable spirit/physical god could care less. You dug a nice hole there.
btw, slow down; reply to this first without ignoring it like last time:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
is this god even real in the first place? are the literary works that they base their stupid assumptions on within sound reason? Are they uniform in providing a homogeneous data source about the "god" in question? Are the authors of these works confirmed and identified and reliable individuals? And most importantly, what is the seniority level of the religion compared with other competing religions?
|
After you have answered all that, you can come to me with your delusional assumptions of whatever being you worship and why "he doesn't have to be a physical being to do any of that." gg
[Updated on: Fri, 07 January 2011 21:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442314 is a reply to message #442309] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 21:24 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:07 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
on the side of reason, one side has offered concrete reasoning to back up their assertions meticulously.
|
That's a pathetic laugh. There's nothing "concrete" or "meticulous" about your hate-babble.
|
Not hate, what he means is that whenever a scientific discovery is made, it is backed up with evidence and proof of the phenomenon.
Many things have gone from ideas and theories to scientific law after evidence was found to support the claims. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout the history of man kind.
However, the existence of God has forever remained a theory; since the day the idea of God was conceived up to even now.
---
Also, I just want to point out, I'm not trying do support or deny the existence of God. I apologist if that's the impression you might have gotten. I'm just being objective; makes for better conversation.
[Updated on: Fri, 07 January 2011 21:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442315 is a reply to message #442314] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 21:55 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:24 |
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:07 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
on the side of reason, one side has offered concrete reasoning to back up their assertions meticulously.
|
That's a pathetic laugh. There's nothing "concrete" or "meticulous" about your hate-babble.
|
Not hate, what he means is that whenever a scientific discovery is made, it is backed up with evidence and proof of the phenomenon.
Many things have gone from ideas and theories to scientific law after evidence was found to support the claims. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout the history of man kind.
|
Thanks, R3. Yeah, that's what I said; obviously he is a fundamentalist and so he's not gonna get that. Sadly understandable though.
---
There was a time when my religious brainwashing was at its total peak (18-20 yrs) that I would zealously demonize anything I didn't agree with. There were times when I would be flipping thru the TV channels and momentarily watch Discovery or History channel and would see some documentary about the Big Bang or anything about the universe. I would burn with hate, curse out loud, and change or turn off the TV.
It's crazy what indoctrination could do to a person; makes them blind hateful ignorant fucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442317 is a reply to message #442314] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 23:09 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
Hate, eh? Now that's a fundamentalist religious mind, right there. Your parents and church did a damn good job allright.
|
Now look at who's changing the subject, eh? I could have suspected. 
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
Exactly, so why did "he" freak out at mere humans building a tower to reach him in the clouds? Why so scared? I would think a spirit god or an interchangable spirit/physical god could care less. You dug a nice hole there.
|
If you're implying he was scared that man would reach him or something, nice try.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
btw, slow down; reply to this first without ignoring it like last time:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
is this god even real in the first place? are the literary works that they base their stupid assumptions on within sound reason? Are they uniform in providing a homogeneous data source about the "god" in question? Are the authors of these works confirmed and identified and reliable individuals? And most importantly, what is the seniority level of the religion compared with other competing religions?
|
|
Give me a good reason why I should bother? You "know" the answers already.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
After you have answered all that, you can come to me with your delusional assumptions of whatever being you worship and why "he doesn't have to be a physical being to do any of that." gg
|
Same as above.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:24 |
Not hate, what he means is that whenever a scientific discovery is made, it is backed up with evidence and proof of the phenomenon.
Many things have gone from ideas and theories to scientific law after evidence was found to support the claims. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times throughout the history of man kind.
However, the existence of God has forever remained a theory; since the day the idea of God was conceived up to even now.
---
Also, I just want to point out, I'm not trying do support or deny the existence of God. I apologist if that's the impression you might have gotten. I'm just being objective; makes for better conversation.
|
I understand that, and I appreciate it. It wasn't really what I was referring to, though. He knows what I'm talking about.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442333 is a reply to message #442317] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 08:21 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 00:09 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
Hate, eh? Now that's a fundamentalist religious mind, right there. Your parents and church did a damn good job allright.
|
Now look at who's changing the subject, eh? I could have suspected.
|
lol changing the subject considering I am the one trying to be on-topic. You have yet to yet to offer a valid argument as to why homosexuality has to banned, how are they hurting you personally, why it will be end of the world (lol), and why laws should be made to keep them buckled down. Everyone here has offered meticulous arguments as to why that should not be the case. You dismissed all that as "hate-babble" (showing your fundamentalist upbringing in a intolerant throughly outdated dogma by parents/church) while dishonestly citing "insults" as why you won't reply. Yeah, we believe you will totally refute all the arguments. NOT.
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 00:09 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
Exactly, so why did "he" freak out at mere humans building a tower to reach him in the clouds? Why so scared? I would think a spirit god or an interchangable spirit/physical god could care less. You dug a nice hole there.
|
If you're implying he was scared that man would reach him or something, nice try.
|
Missed the point, again.
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 00:09 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 22:16 |
btw, slow down; reply to this first without ignoring it like last time:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
is this god even real in the first place? are the literary works that they base their stupid assumptions on within sound reason? Are they uniform in providing a homogeneous data source about the "god" in question? Are the authors of these works confirmed and identified and reliable individuals? And most importantly, what is the seniority level of the religion compared with other competing religions?
|
|
Give me a good reason why I should bother? You "know" the answers already.
|
Cop-out. I DON'T know the answers that's why I am asking. After we know the answers, we can talk about the varied intricacies of the "omnipotent" airgod you were brought up to believe in.
[Updated on: Sat, 08 January 2011 08:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442340 is a reply to message #442333] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 11:24 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
You have yet to yet to offer a valid argument as to why homosexuality has to banned, how are they hurting you personally, why it will be end of the world (lol), and why laws should be made to keep them buckled down.
Cop-out. I DON'T know the answers that's why I am asking. After we know the answers, we can talk about the varied intricacies of the "omnipotent" airgod you were brought up to believe in.
|
My answer to both is the same - this "meticulous" back-and-forth will cease once you finally realize that I'm not interested in debating it, and I have my reasons. Make your own conclusions if it tickles your fancy. But as long as you keep trying to draw me in, I'll just keep deflecting them back (in a way that apparently annoys you).
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442343 is a reply to message #442340] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 14:58 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:24 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
You have yet to yet to offer a valid argument as to why homosexuality has to banned, how are they hurting you personally, why it will be end of the world (lol), and why laws should be made to keep them buckled down.
Cop-out. I DON'T know the answers that's why I am asking. After we know the answers, we can talk about the varied intricacies of the "omnipotent" airgod you were brought up to believe in.
|
My answer to both is the same - this "meticulous" back-and-forth will cease once you finally realize that I'm not interested in debating it, and I have my reasons. Make your own conclusions if it tickles your fancy. But as long as you keep trying to draw me in, I'll just keep deflecting them back (in a way that apparently annoys you).
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly.
|
This. ^^ also, Starbuzz has turned from radical religious zealot, to radical antireligous zealot.... gj. Like Altzan said, it's pointless to debate you when you act like this.
PS: the whole mmarriage thing I mentioned was originally posted by a gay guy. gj.
The manliest post on the internet
[Updated on: Sat, 08 January 2011 14:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442345 is a reply to message #442340] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 15:42 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:24 |
My answer to both is the same - this "meticulous" back-and-forth will cease once you finally realize that I'm not interested in debating it, and I have my reasons. Make your own conclusions if it tickles your fancy. But as long as you keep trying to draw me in, I'll just keep deflecting them back (in a way that apparently annoys you).
|
Next time, if you don't have anything to say anything useful without getting stumped, stick to the Spam Fest with the fist-pumping one-liners.
bye.
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
Discussing a issue in a heated exchange is the least of a problem when one side wants to codify their views as laws with everyone obligated to obey them. Now THAT, is a real problem (re: voter guide). Read what you are saying...so which side is being obnoxious? Your statement falls apart as we are always willing to make compromises IF it is fair and just to everyone; those of faith find this unfulfilling.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 15:58 |
Starbuzz has turned from radical religious zealot, to radical antireligous zealot.... gj. Like Altzan said, it's pointless to debate you when you act like this.
|
Both of you stumped and throwing toys out the pram.
bye.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 15:58 |
PS: the whole mmarriage thing I mentioned was originally posted by a gay guy. gj.
|
Does every gay person agree to that? I will post that around in gay community forums and will be getting back to you on that. Whole chunks of it sounded unfair to me (a hetrosexual); if it was one gay person's request, then fine by me.
In addition, you said some really stupid stuff that was rebuked as well.
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442353 is a reply to message #441534] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 15:53 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
so long as the concept of hell is a mainstream religious belief - which it is - please don't say we atheists are the ones being offensive
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442355 is a reply to message #442353] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 16:13 |
 |
HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
If religions of any sort offend somebody, they are indeed selfish in my mind. People can believe what they want, and I'm fine with it. It's when people start pushing certain religions that it gets offensive. I was born a religious person, but slowly began to turn atheist, and though I was never converted or anything, I no longer believe in hell, god, heaven, or any high being for that matter. Who cares if gays are in the military anyway? So long as they don't start molesting or raping anybody, what's the issue anyway?
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
[Updated on: Sat, 08 January 2011 16:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442356 is a reply to message #442345] |
Sat, 08 January 2011 17:37 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:42 |
Next time, if you don't have anything to say anything useful without getting stumped, stick to the Spam Fest with the fist-pumping one-liners.
|
On the contrary. My words were useful indeed, maybe not to you though.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442371 is a reply to message #441834] |
Sun, 09 January 2011 03:37 |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 02:30 |
| The News |
America is today enacting legislation that will prevent openly heterosexual people from serving in the military...
|
Sounds perfectly reasonable, with servicemen and women in close quarters, with emotionally intense situations occurring almost daily... that could get distracting...
Any objections?
|
It would be better to have hetrosexual men and homosexual women. That way we reach a compromise with a large army (with only homosexuals, the army wouldn't be big enough), and we also get to keep pinup chicks, AND there's no chances of people being distracted.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 24 December 2010 23:58 |
Watching gay people having gay sex doesn't make you gay. So far, the only two ways to become gay are to either be born that way, or to make a conscious choice to engage in a homosexual lifestyle.
|
I've known people that have turned gay in the presence of other gay people...
R3, I think the point about the square circle was that it is logically impossible to draw one, just as it's logically impossible to lift an object created so that it couldn't be lifted...
| Starbuzzz wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:30 |
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 15:46 |
Really though, this topic should be split so we can discuss God's omnipotence B-)
|
No! Let's not split the topic. This side discussion of "omnipotence" perfectly shows that theists can only debate a topic they are comfortable with. Why and how? Easy: when debating "omnipotence" theists don't have to deal with the hard parts, ie, is this god even real in the first place? are the literary works that they base their stupid assumptions on within sound reason? Are they uniform in providing a homogeneous data source about the "god" in question? Are the authors of these works confirmed and identified and reliable individuals? And most importantly, what is the seniority level of the religion compared with other competing religions?
No, it's not considering this is the same "non-physical being" that had to:
-rest on the 7th day after 6 days of shooting out lame one-liners (1 lame one-liner a day).
-feel the need to walk in the garden in the cool of the day
-screw up the human language because he was scared shitless of humans unitedly building a tower to reach him in the clouds and kicking his ass
-send down "chariots of fire" to pick up VIP's (Elijah)
Most often, he was probably some kind of lame alien with obvious limitations. "Omnipresent" and "omnipotent" were words that theologians grabbed and zealously attached to their god. They failed.
ps: read your bible without skipping a single verse.
|
Actually theists didn't start this side-topic... it was R3
Those references from the bibles would probably be considered as metaphors by Christians, I doubt they believe that God needed to rest on the 7th day...
Your last line here is important though, because:
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
People are always going to view things from their prospective, that's not easy to change. But if you are going to be obnoxious it helps if you know what you're talking about (ie:know everything about your religion)
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:53 |
so long as the concept of hell is a mainstream religious belief - which it is - please don't say we atheists are the ones being offensive
|
let's see somebody reply to that...
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442383 is a reply to message #442371] |
Sun, 09 January 2011 12:58 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 04:37 |
Actually theists didn't start this side-topic... it was R3
|
Never said they did, did I? Just that they like debating it cos its a easy topic to wallow in. I can just as easily start a topic discussing the powers of Shiva; then again the Christian theists here will beg the same preliminary questions I asked them above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442387 is a reply to message #441534] |
Sun, 09 January 2011 14:43 |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
That can be refuted. One of the may things we could say is "God said it so we should make it law".
please don't take that path. If god "said it", there must have been a good reason for him to say "it". for example Muslims don't drink alcohol. This is because it is intoxicating to the brain.
Pleads dont flame.
Edit: so yeah, carrier is probably right, you'd have to be obnoxious to assume your God is right
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
[Updated on: Sun, 09 January 2011 14:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442407 is a reply to message #442387] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 10:37 |
|
|
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 21:43 |
...
Edit: so yeah, carrier is probably right, you'd have to be obnoxious to assume your God is right
|
Nearly, to assume your God is right is fine.
To forcibly tell others that your God, or lack thereof, is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
To try to make your God's word law is obnoxious in the extreme.
Edit: Corrected for balance. Thanks for indicating, Altzan.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Mon, 10 January 2011 12:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442410 is a reply to message #442407] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 11:01 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
That, or lack thereof, as you stated before.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 01:10:38 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01463 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
