Messages

26

Completely Unrelated / Re: "Pineapple" Update...

« on: 2007-06-05 22:28:31 »

Wow. that is a surprisingly good computer model. Looks awesome! Did you teach yourself, or take a class?

[Edit]
Holy crap, you did that in blender? I have a sudden urge to start modeling, no joke. If only my computer could handle blender that is ...

27

Completely Unrelated / Re: Legal advice?

« on: 2007-05-17 03:54:25 »

I live on the opposite side of the United States as you so... probably not. Cool avatar, though.

28

Completely Unrelated / Re: Interesting puzzle game

« on: 2007-04-29 19:10:06 »

Hmm, I guess that the suggested cubes used isn't always the least number possible (although it should be).  Still kind of a cool concept though.

29

Completely Unrelated / Interesting puzzle game

« on: 2007-04-29 03:53:25 »

http://www.mathsnet.net/geometry/solid/houses.html

This is an interesting puzzle game that I've stumbled upon. The object of the puzzle is to build a 3d object that meets the view requirements in the upper left corner. If you've found a solution, a green dot will appear next to the puzzle name. If you've found a solution using the least number of cubes, a yellow dot will appear next to the puzzle name. I've solved all of them (yellow dot) without cheating except the first.

30

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-28 05:58:02 »

You know, perhaps you shouldn't set up your questions like you did, if you are insulted by the answers?

Touché 

One thing I have to request is that you do not make fun of others’ English if they are not native speakers, no matter how much you think they deserve it.

Well, if he uses profanity, it's fair game.  I lose respect for people that just start spouting cuss words, because it shows a lack of intelligence. His post (starting with the words "YES F***ing YES" just irritated me a little because I hate it when non-native speakers learn the swearwords before they can make sense of their sentences and just potty mouth off everywhere.  I only made one comment, however, and I never said another word about his English. But it's not like I've repeatedly offended anyone like some grammar-nazis around here  ...

Oh, and you know what else annoys me? ChaosControl's notoriously pointless and lackluster comments that seem to be sprinkled in every topic.

31

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-27 05:00:29 »

First of all, we don't need a cure for AIDS.

Try coming to Thailand and saying that.  I had a female friend who had a mother.  It’s past-tense because, just within my short time here, her mother managed to die of AIDS she had gotten when she was raped by a foreigner who came to this country to do just that.  But I suppose if it was you here instead of me, you would have told her, “We don’t need a cure for AIDS.  Just die please.  And since you are Buddhist and don’t believe in the one true church, go to hell while you’re at it.”

I'm sorry about your friend's mother. Your female friend still has a mother, however -- waiting for your female friend when she dies.

I've never taken the time to fully explain my beliefs (nor do I intend to, lest you belittle and pick apart each one), but I never said that the other religions would "go to hell" (nor would athiests). You love to take every statement I make and turn it into a hyperbole of offensive degree.  I believe that there are different kingdoms of glory that each person falls into. In your (and your friend's mother's) case, you would *probably* fall into the second highest degree in heaven when you die. Good, even great people, that were "blinded by the craftiness of man" fall into this category. It is not terrible, but it will be disappointing when you will see what you could have had.

People call it a pandemic, yet it is so easy to consciously abstain from spreading it.

Although a very huge percentage of people spread it before they even know they have it.  It takes no fewer than 6 months to be detected, and without reason for suspicion, it will take longer than that to detect until the guy or girl actually thinks something is wrong and goes in and gets checked.  Most people usually only do this after a solid year of having HIV, during which time they easily manage to infect 20 others, each of whom won’t know they have it until they’ve spent a year infecting 20 others.
It’s the perfect killing machine.

Infect 20 others?? Who are these people, sex machines? That's why (at least my) religion preaches chastity and abstinence. It is a good moral standard that prevents people from being ravaged by HIV+ sexual maniacs. Yet again you dodge my question. So let me rephrase and ask it again. Would not the HIV virus become extinct if the entire human population upheld moral standards, and actually thought of the consequences before jumping in bed with every person to come along?

since it is, after all, a test. If we remembered God from before we were born, then we would all have a perfect faith, and it wouldn't be a test, would it?

So, while I presented a series of logically connected events that easily explain why we have no soul or conscience before life, your whole side can be summarized as “it’s a test,” which is, in any case, something you choose to believe out of fear rather than by some logical foundation.

If this were all true, then would you, or would you not be screwed when you die?

And this just goes to show I am right.  You never once in your life tried to think on your own.  You live in the fear others gave you.  You constantly spend your energy checking and rechecking yourself to make sure everything you do falls within the boundaries of what others told you would land you in Heaven.  You spend so much energy checking yourself it takes time from your life, and concern that you might fall outside those boundaries just once causes you so much stress that the quality of your life, the one life you know you have, is going down the drain (note that I don’t mean to imply you have this stress all the time, but just at some times when you do something or think a certain idea).
You live in a cage created by your parents when you were a child.  かわいそですね。 You never even had a chance.

Thank you for summarizing my beliefs and thoughts. Of all the people in the world, you know me the best. Once again, you dodge answering my question by glorifying your own argument. You also stab in the dark at what my beliefs are. You should probably stop before you hurt yourself.

On a tangent, what the heck does "かわいそですね。" mean? Online Thai translators are quite rare I'll have you know.

You don't know if your spirit can have thought process after you die

And neither do you, so stop betting all your money on it.

We'll settle the bets after we both die.

If all you can see is visible light, does that mean that infrared and ultraviolet don't exist?

Who said anything about just being able to see thing?  And by the way, yes, we have ways of detecting ultraviolet light and infrared, so we can certainly prove they do indeed exist, without being able to see them directly.  No one said seeing directly with our own eyes is the only form of proof.  But no method exists to detect or prove your God.

...
Somehow, you've managed to miss the entire beauty of my analogy. Of course there are ways of detecting ultraviolet and infrared light. But ages ago, there was no such thing. Just as we didn't have a method of detecting light that was not in the color spectrum back then (or rather, we didn't even know it existed), we don't have a way of physically detecting spiritual matter now.

Did it just appear out of nowhere? Explain that to me in cold hard facts.

No, see, unlike Christians, I don’t pretend to have an undisputable answer for every single thing anyone could ever ask.  I actually take the time to acknowledge what things humans simply can never know.  And I understand that any idea I suggested as an answer would be simply my own idea.  Christians, on the other hand, simply know absolutely everything, no matter how impossible it really is to know.  I have no doubts that you can tell me how the universe began, and I have no doubts that while you are explaining it all, it will never occur to you how ridiculous your explanation is, or that you are trying to present as fact something that has no real-world basis and can never be proved right, but it will occur to you that your explanation can never be proved wrong.

Don't be ridiculous, I don't know, or even claim to know everything. I have no clue how God created the universe, only that he did.

Do you acknowledge that there are concepts and objects that exist that we do not comprehend, or even begin to understand? Just because we cannot "prove" it does not mean it does not exist.

I think I explained quite well that I am familiar with the idea of being unable to explain things, and that things can not be understood/comprehended.

You do realize that I wrote my entire post in one sitting, and that I hadn't received your "explanation" before reiterating what I already stated.

If it is a fact that God doesn't exist, then present some evidence please.

Sure, but first ... a bunch of garbage trying to prove a point that no matter how ridiculous the belief, it is impossible to confirm with empirical evidence either way...

Alright... so...? You clearly said "Sure [I will provide you with some evidence], but first...". I read your "but first", and now I'm waiting for the part that you promised next. Somehow, your post seems to have ended before you got to that part. Perhaps you could incorporate it into your next post?

Wait, that statement wasn't even intended for you... Djé you sneaky dog, getting L. Spiro on your side was what you (hoped) wanted.

Also, L. Spiro, have you ever considered law school? You deliver your arguments with such confidence and such conviction, that it's difficult to retaliate with sufficient argue with you.

RPGillespie

32

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-27 02:36:40 »

I never insulted you, so calm down. Excuse me for my badly written speech, I'm not a native English speaker. Do you want to write in French ? Oh, too bad, you never learned that language huh.

In fact you did insult me when you said (with profanity) that the world would enter a "golden age of enlightenment" if all religion was eliminated. I happen to be a religious man myself, and the truth is something I keep close to my heart.

Now, to your next witty rebuttal. If I wanted to write in French, I would join a French forum. Unfortunately, French is about last on my list of languages that I want to learn. If you want, I can converse with you somewhat (and by somewhat, I mean very limited) in Italian or Spanish.

It's a fact God doesn't exist, so I know you won't make an extraordinary discovery that will change the scientist face of the world. Sorry but I'm a bit Carthesien (From Descartes? You know, that means, rationalist, I think with my reason not my love) .

I'm a man of reason as well (probably more so than you). If it is a fact that God doesn't exist, then present some evidence please. If you're a man of reason, give me one piece of proof that can deliver the decisive blow to my argument, the coup de grâce, if you will.

Good bye and I wish you a great life with God
Tschüss.

Ditto to you my friend (oh, the irony) 

33

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-26 19:51:44 »

You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world.

No, just a lot of it.  People’s differences make more problems than anything, with second place being people’s overactive passion.
Unfortunately, religions are both ways of making people different and making them passionate.

I mostly agree with that statement. While true that most religions cause contention among each other because of differing beliefs, this is because they are corrupt with the ways of man. There is only one true church, and the rest are pretty much abominations to the world.

This quote is exactly the cause of most problems we have:

No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions

For the record, religious people are the exact reason we do not yet have a cure for AIDS, and also why research in stem-cell research, capable of radically changing lives in positive ways, has barely even been scratched.

First of all, we don't need a cure for AIDS. People call it a pandemic, yet it is so easy to consciously abstain from spreading it. I understand that a small fraction of people obtain AIDS through blood transfusions, but the majority is through sexual irresponsibility. We could extinct AIDS as a human population if we would simply make the right choices. As for stem cell research, the only thing religion hinders is embryonic stem-cell research. This is because the research requires a dead, or terminated embryo, in order to produce data. The majority of these embryos come from abortions, which is a direct result of irresponsibility. We wouldn't want to promote that, now would we? Also, you say the stem-cell research is "capable of radically changing lives." While this may be true, this is not a fact, rather a theory. What is wrong with using umbilical stem-cells?

The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is no situation either way when you die.
When you die, your atoms dissolve into the ground.  Years later some of them, carried away by insects and left in the soil, get used to make bricks for houses, concrete for roads, etc.  Of course, imagining yourself as a road should come easy, since every single atom in your body has at one time or another been part of an actual star, burning for millions of years, until finally shot into the blank sub-zero cold of outer space, where they spent more millions of years until they finally ended up inside an apple your mother ate, which was digested, broken into its core components, and distributed around her body, allowing them to be used by her ovaries to make the components of the egg that eventually made your body.

And you think this just stops because you die?  Guess what.  You’re going to die, and your atoms are going to spend millions more years traveling around before they finally land in some other life form(s).

Stop changing the subject (or rather, avoiding directly answering my question). Assume for the purposes of this argument (which you love to do), that your body is inhabited by a spirit which the bible discerns as matter.  Perhaps we haven't been able to "see" this type of matter yet, just as we we thought that the only type of light was visible light long ago. Also assume that you passed through a "veil" which caused you to forget everything before you came to earth, since it is, after all, a test. If we remembered God from before we were born, then we would all have a perfect faith, and it wouldn't be a test, would it? If this were all true, then would you, or would you not be screwed when you die?

Go on all you want about some form of conscience you plan to have after your physical body is destroyed.  Nothing changes the cold hard facts.  Without a physical body, there is no thought process.  There is no conscience.  No pain, no happiness, no memories, no regrets, no anything.
Remember the time before you were born?  You don’t remember that!?  Geezer man, you missed out on billions of years dude.
Oh wait.  You did’t have the physical construct capable of giving you the conscience you have now.
Clueless as to how it feels to be dead?  You’ve already “experienced” it once before.

Yes, but we don't have all of the cold hard facts. You don't know if your spirit can have thought process after you die... well, because you're not dead. If all you can see is visible light, does that mean that infrared and ultraviolet don't exist? Speaking of atoms and matter, tell me where this dense star of matter that caused the big bang came from. Wait... you can't? Did it just appear out of nowhere? Explain that to me in cold hard facts.

I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.

Let me put it this way.
Put away all your stubborn “I know He exists beyond all doubt, period” ideas for a moment and really acknowledge the one thing you really do absolutely know as an undeniable fact: You are alive now.
I did’t say you would be alive tomorrow.  I did’t say you will get another life after this one.  None of that is known to be indisputable fact.  You know that you are alive here and now, and nothing more.
That means this life is the only one you know you have.  This life is the only chance you know you have for doing everything you want to do.
If that did’t really hit you, read it again until it does.
You sit here and change your entire life, the only life you know you have, based on things you just assumed to be true because it was spoon fed into you as a child.
You changed how you think, how you act, etc., without even considering that the way you do things now is a waste of the one life you have.  Or if not a total waste, at least not the best way to live it.  You avoid true happiness by simply believing you are already there, or that you will get there during the most uncertain time in people’s lives: death.
You change your life to pursue a goal you never even dare to consider might not even be there to pursue.

OK, I acknowledge that. Do you acknowledge that there are concepts and objects that exist that we do not comprehend, or even begin to understand? Just because we cannot "prove" it does not mean it does not exist.

Djé - If you are trying to come off as the biggest idiot yet to walk the forums, you have succeeded. After spending several minutes deciphering your badly written post, I can conclude that it was just a rant about how your grandfather died and how you couldn't believe in a God that would let him die. Oh yeah, and something about bush and terrorists. Nothing noteworthy, so I won't waste my time arguing with you.

Ok fine. There is one thing you said:

Answer is: YES, fuc*ing YES! We have to get rid of religions...

My reply is this: Not with people like you roaming the streets.


Jari - I'll get to you post in a second. I'm having a hard time putting actual thought into this argument without my teacher catching me when she walks by.

34

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-26 04:39:08 »

L.Spiro:
No use arguing with me, it isn't going to change any of my opinions. You seem vehement towards religion and God in general. You claim that religion is the cause of contention and suffering in the world. You think that if everyone took an atheist and logical approach to life, the world would enter a golden age of enlightenment, am I wrong?

Seriously, do you know anything about the plan of salvation? If God is almighty, why do people even die? Why are there diseases in the world? Why doesn't everyone live in a perpetually happy state where no one dies and nothing bad ever happens? Because we live in an imperfect world, and we are being tested of our faith in Him. So stop belittling those who believe in God, because you will regret it later.

If there truly is no God, then who gives a crap what anyone does? Might as well brutally murder this child, after all, there are no consequences to such actions other than breaking the law humans created; plus, you'll achieve the same goal as you would by pulling the plug. Also, it will give the child's crack-addict parents something else to think about besides crack. The advantage that comes with being a believer in God, is that I have a win/win situation when I die. I can be happy in this life, as well as the next. If there is no God (which there is), then I cease to exist having lived a happy life. I have absolutely nothing to lose. You, however, have everything to lose.  I digress, however, and will leave my post at this.

RPGillespie

35

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-26 01:47:08 »

All I know is, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this baby. So, if he dies naturally, that's one thing. Physically pulling the plug, however, is taking it into your own hands to deem whether the baby should live or not. True, the baby may be in pain (I wouldn't know, I'm not the baby), but does that give people the right to "put him out of his misery"?

The parents have the final say. You would want the same freedom if you were married. So, the parents made the choice. Why argue?

This disease is much more than incurable - trust me, it really is incurable without any quotes - it's plain fatal to him if he's disconnected. Also, rarity of the disease does not factor into ending someone's life support in any way.

The reason I put it in quotes is because miracles are not unheard of. Nothing is incurable.

36

Completely Unrelated / Re: Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

« on: 2007-04-26 00:09:32 »

Who are you to judge whether or not a person should live? If we can keep him alive, why shouldn't we?

Is money worth more than human life, even if he does have a rare illness?

Could you (or would you) consciously kill (yes, that's what "pulling the plug" does) a person on life support if he/she had a rare "incurable" disease?

37

Completely Unrelated / Virtual Haircut (3D Sound)

« on: 2007-04-16 04:34:33 »

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=22913
(Earphones needed. The better the earphone, the cooler the effect)

This audio clip is a very high-quality demonstration of positional sound. I thought it was very well made clip. Cheesy Italian accents, but sometimes it seemed as though I wasn't wearing earphones at all, and that there were other people in the room.

38

Completely Unrelated / Re: Be Sure to Get These

« on: 2007-04-09 21:06:15 »

Wow, you develop for the nintendo DS? Those games don't look too bad actually.

Hey, I have a question. Does the Nintendo DS have any physics engines (2D specifically) available for development (or 2D physics capabilities that do not have to be manually developed)? My friends and I built a working prototype of a game idea that we had for DS using GameMaker and a 2D physics engine (for simplicity reasons), and now we are wondering whether or not it is possible on the DS without having to custom-program a 2D physics engine.

--RPGillespie

39

Completely Unrelated / Re: Running Glitch Meta b*tching

« on: 2007-04-03 02:19:54 »

stormmedia and ice_cold513: It almost seems as though your posts are getting even more erroneous and confusing as this topic progresses.  Just try to make your sentences as clear as possible, because even I am having trouble following your arguments.  You are probably doing this to provoke Jari, so stop.

stormmedia: You need to use punctuation. This I absolutely agree with. Even if you can't conjugate verbs properly, it is 10x easier to read what you are writing if you simply punctuate your sentences (Yes, you have been getting better at this as the topic has progressed).

Jari: I think that profane language in most cases is a worse offense than bad spelling; maybe you could tone it down just a little. Just my opinion of course.

------------
Firefox 2 (and probably IE7) has an amazing spell checker built in that underlines words that have been misspelled in red. Simply right-click the word, and the correct spelling will usually pop-up (unless you have horribly butchered the word beyond recognition).

The following words, save "discution," have the correct spelling on Firefox's spell-check list (taken from stormmedia's earlier post):
clairly -> clearly
ponctuation -> punctuation
exept -> except
grammer -> grammar
discution -> discussion

I'm by no means bashing on you stormmedia, I'm just showing the powerful capabilities of a spell-checking browser.

-RPGillespie

40

Completely Unrelated / Re: Best Geeky Jokes Ever

« on: 2007-01-28 00:33:34 »

Edit: And (apparently) Adenosine Tri-Phosphate is commonly referred to as ATP (or 80p)

That's what we called it in AP Biology...

Speaking of which...

Two gorgeous blonde biologists were in the field one fine summer day. While following a game trail, they came across a pair of tracks. "Look! a pair of tracks" The first blonde said while pointing to the ground. "Those are deer tracks," the other blonde replied. "Oh no," she said to the first, "Those are definitely moose tracks." With this, they began to argue. In fact, they were still arguing when the train hit them.

41

Completely Unrelated / Re: Best Geeky Jokes Ever

« on: 2007-01-24 20:57:23 »

Q: What is the derivative of Metroid?
A: Metroid Prime!

Ehm, primes don't have anything to do with derivatives...

eh, some people write a function and it's derivatives as such:

y = x²
y' = 2x
y'' = 2

where y' is pronounced "y prime" and y'' is "y double prime" although I suspect you knew that...

so if you had a function metroid, then it's derivative would be metroid'... lame I know

Most people notate derivatives as:

y = x²
dy/dx = 2x
dy²/d²x =2

42

Completely Unrelated / Re: Best Geeky Jokes Ever

« on: 2007-01-23 22:40:42 »

Oh! Oh! I got one that I came up with myself!

Q: What is the derivative of Metroid?
A: Metroid Prime!

Q: What is the derivative of Optimus?
A: Ok, ok, I'll stop...

43

Completely Unrelated / Re: Best Geeky Jokes Ever

« on: 2007-01-23 05:01:20 »

Best Geeky Jokes Ever (going round our internal newsgroups at the moment):

....

Those are awesome! - I got some

Geek pick up line:
"I wish I were your derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves..."
--alternate-pickup--
"Are you differentiable? Cause if you are, I could be tangent to your curves..."

What's the derivative of a cow?
Prime Rib!

44

Completely Unrelated / Re: Puzzle for you

« on: 2007-01-04 23:10:45 »

You should seek a certain Top Gear (I'm fairly sure that it was a Top Gear) episode on Google video.

Yeah, it is  .
Boeing vs Mondeo (3 min)

45

Completely Unrelated / Re: Puzzle for you

« on: 2007-01-04 01:09:29 »

If a conveyor system worked like you think, it would not be a lot cheaper (not to mention SMALLER) to use, than a 1/2 mile long deck with 3 x 50 ton, steam-driven catapault?

Umm... I don't think you quite understand this whole concept. You still need to reach the same speed you normally would to take off (i.e. the conveyor belt would have to be the same length as a normal runway), the only thing that would change is the speed of the wheels which have no effect on flight whatsoever (beside keeping the plane from grinding along the ground).

46

Completely Unrelated / Re: Puzzle for you

« on: 2007-01-03 23:10:40 »

If its on a conveyor belt, it is not going anywhere...

But it is going somewhere--in the direction the turbines/propellers are pulling it.

Think of it like this: You have Rollerblades on and you are standing on a treadmill that matches the speed of you in the opposite direction. You are holding a rope being towed by a car (in front of the treadmill) and the car stars moving.

You're saying that the treadmill is going to pull you backward, and therefore there can be no positive net gain in velocity.

Jari is saying that the wheels/treadmill have no effect whatsoever on your forward movement and your wheels will just be spinning twice as fast when you reach the end of the treadmill.

47

Completely Unrelated / Re: The babies who are murdered to order

« on: 2006-12-20 16:31:59 »

...which isn't that more harmful then smoking...

*notes change of avatar/name capitalization*

Aside from the fact that smoking weed is, in fact, smoking, you're saying that marijuana is slightly more harmful then tobacco smoking. Let's see, tobacco, scratch that, any partially burning substance contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including a metabolite of benzopyrene, which is an extremely carcinogenic substance because when undergoing oxidation, produces epoxide which permanently binds and distorts DNA. Additionally, the carbon monoxide produced by inefficient combustion of organic molecules
permanently binds to your blood's hemoglobin which reduces your efficiency of oxygen consumption. Additionally,

Tobacco smoke also contains various carcinogens other than polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, such as traces of radioactive elements. For example, smoke from tobacco grown with phosphate fertilizers contains polonium 210

So saying the weed "isn't much worse" than tobbaco is a pretty idiotic statement considering that tobacco is one of the most deadly substances available to the general public.

I think Kashmir is correct--you seriously need to see a psychiatrist. You are so selfish that you would kill babies (which might I add, you were once) to save yourself from your own foolish (for lack of a better word) choices.

48

Completely Unrelated / Re: The babies who are murdered to order

« on: 2006-12-19 16:35:15 »

I don't really care about babies being murdered...
I don't see the problem, they don't even know they are alive or dead, they pretty much know nothing anyway...

Wow, every time I think "chaoscontrol surely can't stoop lower than his last comment" you somehow manage. The world is the way it is because of imbeciles like you. How do you become so desensitized that you regard real-life (not the violent video games you play) murderings of infants, who are the most innocent and pure humans in the world at about the same level as taking out the trash?? What's the purpose of doing research to save humans, when you are murdering humans to progress the research? That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, except Paul never gets repayed (or not anytime soon at least), and "robbing" is actually "murdering babies" (okay, that was a really bad analogy I know  ).

How do you even know whether or not a baby can "think" in infancy? You can't remember when you were a baby, but that doesn't mean that you didn't have conscious thought. Ah, what the world has come to. Perhaps you were just stoned on your drugs and didn't actually think about what you were writing...

49

Completely Unrelated / Re: Warning: Xbox 360 Kills Infants

« on: 2006-12-16 00:08:31 »

Because youre in a f***ing coma if not death...
And it hurts,.. Oh i know, probably even better then the kid who died cus of it, she probably didn't feel mush after the first blow.

Have ye no shame? You know "how it feels" better than the kid who died because she "probably" didn't feel much? Dude...

I would hate you if you were my father: "Meh, whatever, I 'accidentally' killed RPGillespie because he spilled my beer, but he probably didn't feel much because I fractured his skull pretty good -- so long as he didn't feel anything everything will be fine..."

You are our forum drug junkie, are you not?  You were probably high as a kite on shrooms or all that weed you smoke anyway...

- That's so true! Chaoscontrol is always trying to justify his pot addiction... But I digress!

50

Completely Unrelated / Re: Video Editing

« on: 2006-12-12 13:15:11 »

Virtualdub is great video editing software and it's free. But it's also rather simple, linear editor. Meaning that it can't do layers or anything like that - it's not really a replacement for Premiere.

Hey cool, I'll check it out -- thanks 

-RPGillespie