Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


rozz666

Member Since 27 May 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 12:43 AM

#5147175 Reference initialization required.

Posted by rozz666 on 15 April 2014 - 01:05 PM

 

In Python, references are mutable and their labels (referers)are changed to refer to other referents(objects) by using an = operation.

a=20
b=a
b=30 # Changing object refering-to (referent 30)
del a # Who cares?! b is referring to another object now. Object 20 is garbage collected.  
print b

Output:

30

 

Python reference are C++ pointers (they are also garbage collected, of course).




#5141527 "Vector" of types? (compile time template)

Posted by rozz666 on 23 March 2014 - 03:00 PM

Have a look at Boost.MPL: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/mpl/doc/refmanual.html

It provides among other things containers and algorithms for types.




#5113005 Always running into a circular dependency

Posted by rozz666 on 29 November 2013 - 10:35 AM

Why does an Entity has to know about the Scene?




#5096451 Self-shadowing terrain idea - asking for feedback

Posted by rozz666 on 24 September 2013 - 12:26 PM

If I understood correctly, you have a shadow function that depends on time (let's call it s(t)) and you want to describe this function. For this, you want to make is a smooth step function (_/---) so you just need to store the coefficients. Keep in mind though, that you need more than 2 values. s(t) looks more like this (sunrise ___/--day--\___ sunset), so you need at least 4 values. Still, it should be pretty easy to implement. This, of course, assumes fixed relation between the ground and the sun.




#5095412 How to debug the complex data structure and algrithms such like quadtree, BSP...

Posted by rozz666 on 20 September 2013 - 04:46 AM

I would split the algorithm into the smallest pieces that are reasonable and unit test every possible scenario. Then the only bugs that could occur would be integration errors, which I would cover with module tests.




#4842556 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 30 July 2011 - 10:34 AM


Why do you thing I have a bias instead of being skeptic? I asked for your evidence that convinces you. Just give the one best you've got. Surely you should be able to defend it if it's correct.

There are historical texts, of which the Bible is 66 pieces (you do realize the Bible isn't just one book, right? Posted Image), that have archaeological backing.

Great. Then those things are most likely true. What about resurrections, miracles and stuff?

There's things that I've seen or know people who have seen that cannot be explained as anything other than God where coincidence isn't a possibility.

Read about an argument from ignorance (which, in this case, boils down to 'I can't think of any other way, therefore God did it'). God of the gaps fits here also.

Personally, I think it takes more faith to believe that everything just happened by chance than to believe there's a God that created it.

Who said it happened by chance?
Again, argument from ignorance. Why do assume there are only those 2 possibilities (false dichotomy)? If you say that one of them is wrong it does not mean that the other one is correct.

I have no idea. Before you go with the "The Bible says it's a couple thousand years old" - no, it doesn't. It doesn't give any indication as to how old it is.

Just asking. BTW according to our current knowledge it's 4.5 billion years old.


#4842555 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 30 July 2011 - 10:33 AM


Slavery is a bad example. It's supported by your Bible ;-)

No, not supported. God dealt with it since his people were practicing it.

I see giving laws about using slaves (both in OT and NT) as supporting.


But you don't seem to get it. Your god committed evil acts and you just dismiss it saying it's the old testament. That's cherry picking. You just pick the parts you like.
What about ten commandments?

Evil according to your viewpoint. As our creators he's perfectly within his rights to do as he sees fit to us.


Well, you presented your viewpoint. What's so surprising?
It doesn't matter whether he has every right (he doesn't), it's still evil.
What about ten commandments? They are also OT so they do not apply, right?


I gave you the quote when Jesus said that blessed are those who believed without evidence. Now you claim it's taken out of context, so it's your turn to provide one that supports your position.

You're talking about people that believe they're right about something that's contrary to what scripture teaches. That's not faith.

There was no NT yet at that time, so your reply doesn't make sense. In those verses (John 20:24-29) we have Jesus explicitly blessing those who believed him without seeing his wounds.
Faith is belief without evidence.


When regarding faith - yes. When regarding other areas, not at all.
Believing in a magic being that create universes without evidence is hardly reasonable.

There is evidence though, you just don't accept it as such.

Evidence is or isn't. What you may not accept is where it leads. So what evidence do you have that leads to god (personal experience is not evidence)?


So, special pleading?

No, just common sense.

Common sense is not a reliable way of determining what's true in many cases (Special Relativity for example). You need evidence in every case. Otherwise, it's special pleading.


#4841529 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 28 July 2011 - 05:33 AM


After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.

People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.

I've read something that comes basically the same thing, but expressed it as the meta-confidence. How confident a person is about their confidence.

Those people who are confident that they are correct, and those who are not confident that they can believe what they know. Both will believe the Earth is flat, but one knows the Earth is flat, because they are confident that they know the Earth is flat, while the other group accepts the Earth is flat until evidence comes their way.


I once read an article about correlation between confidence and competence. I don't remember whether it this this one: http://www.chacocanyon.com/pointlookout/090107.shtml but makes the same point anyways.


#4841298 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 27 July 2011 - 03:06 PM


Really? And how do you test whether something is real?

The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc. If we're just going to slowly boil away into an existential argument in which nothing exists please stop this chain of questioning.

No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).


You believe it was good?

Do I believe stopping a genocidal army from taking over most of the world was good? Yes I do.

That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.

Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?

So do you want me to just read you the Bible...?

No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.


#4841286 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 27 July 2011 - 02:33 PM


It's not about consistency. It's about it being wrong. Second, can you differ between hallucinating and god reveling himself? Don't just say yes/no. Explain.

I can differ between it insomuch as I can differ between hallucinating and anything I perceive to be reality.

Really? And how do you test whether something is real?


Because his concept of good and bad is messed up. Killing millions of people or sending plagues just to prove a point is hardly good in my book. Before you start arguing that you don't have to justify god's actions, answer: would it be good if a human did this?

Do you consider the Allied response to the Axis in WWII 'good'? You could view that in just as poor a light as the picture you've just painted.

What are talking about? Where did I say it was good? Why do you change the topic? Can you answer the question that was posted?

What are you on about? I am giving a counterexample of something good that resulted in millions of deaths and ruined lives. When you take things out of context it's easy to consider something "hardly good".

You believe it was good?
Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?


#4840696 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 26 July 2011 - 11:51 AM

I think we again got into details when we still have no evidence for god.


#4840669 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 26 July 2011 - 11:14 AM

1. God is all knowing
2. God is all loving
3. Hell exists and humans are sent there for disobeying God

3. is not God's fault. Hell is much more a punishment we bring on ourselves than a punishment that God visits upon us.



I have no words for this logic.

Posted Image



#4839223 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 23 July 2011 - 01:03 AM


I won't argue about hell since it's obvious that you've already decided what you want to believe and it makes you feel good, therefore you are not willing to change.

I am willing to change, if I want to of course.

I am willing to change to what evidence points to, regardless of what I would like.

"We haven't seen god, therefore there isn't any reason to believe he exists".

You've changed the meaning. "We haven't seen" is very different to "We have no evidence of". If you accept things on faith without evidence you can just accept anything - all options are equally valid.

I've took that under consideration and, after a long process, I decided my personal philosophy for myself, with all the contradictions and unanswered questions that come with it.

For me unanswered questions are fine, we just have to look for more evidence to answer them. Contradictions are however a sign that a hypothesis is wrong. Unfalsifiability is another sign.


I think that's the main difference between us. I care about the truth regardless of emotions attached to it.

Well, that's good. As long as you accept that it's only what you perceive as "truth", and not the objective one.


All we know is from what we perceive (directly or indirectly). You can't claim to know an objective one. You can, of course, believe that you know, but that does not matter.
I'm curious how your "thruth" is "more objective".


#4839127 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 22 July 2011 - 03:47 PM

Seriously? Scientific method? Maybe I should use science to tell me what kind of girl I should marry, you know, make a graph, statistics about the success of marriage, compatibility charts, gather evidence that she's the one.

The scientific method is not about graphs etc. It's about reasoning in order to understand reality.

As for marriage, that's your personal choice.

Existence of god is a scientific claim and therefore has to be decided using scientific method.

I'm a whole person. Insticts,passions, emotions,intelligence. I don't deny any of those. I don't deify logic. Those elements make me, I'm neither a cyborg nor a reptile. That a certain philosophy deeply moves me, intellectually and emotionally, is a very good reason to follow it in my life. I don't nag others demanding or expecting to conform to my beliefs. Reading Jesus' teachings elevate me, and that's that. I feel good. I'd rather be happy than right, although in this case I think I'm both, but I don't mind those that disagree neither I judge them.

I think that's the main difference between us. I care about the truth regardless of emotions attached to it.


As for Jesus' teaching, why did you leave out the bad part? Follow me or you will burn in hell (John 3:18) and stuff and just focused on the parts you like?


I don't preoccupy myself with the concept of 'Hell'. The doctrine I follow says that, after death, we will be in the presence of God, all of us. I will perceive it as bliss, you will perceive it as torture(obviously, having your whole life's view shattered and spending eternity with someone the idea of whom you never liked and rejected). Other than that, it's not my place to tell a fellow human being what is his place. I hope for the best though.


I won't argue about hell since it's obvious that you've already decided what you want to believe and it makes you feel good, therefore you are not willing to change.
Good luck.




#4839009 What do you think about the Revelation?

Posted by rozz666 on 22 July 2011 - 10:47 AM



Doing something "in the name of God" doesn't mean God told them to do it or approved of it.


That doesn't matter. How can you tell the difference? How could they prove that he did? How would you prove that he didn't (hint: we have examples in the Bible of God commanding genocide, human sacrifice etc. so it's plausible for believers)?

That was O.T.

So what?

and done for a reason (to ensure God's people survived).

I'm sorry for you if are able to come up with good reasons to justify genocide and human sacrifice. I really find your morality repulsive.

You can tell the difference by seeing if said people follow the example of Christ. For the record - neither the people responsible for the Crusades, nor Hitler nor David Koresh, nor ... followed this example.

It still doesn't matter. They believed they were right without evidence. That's what Christianity teaches you, that faith is a virtue. Just like you do not question the what god supposedly did in the Old Testament.



That just makes them misguided or deceived.

I agree. Since there's no evidence for god, all believer are misguided or deceived.

There is evidence (note: I didn't say proof), but you just don't accept it.

So you have some evidence that is so weak that any reasonable person will reject it?




PARTNERS