At 6/24/02 11:32 PM, sirevil1024 wrote: came on people say something, please reply, need more mp3s, go to my site download what song is on now

Kazaa works really well for me. I've found every song I searched for so far on there.

At 6/24/02 04:03 AM, Calderon wrote: The BBS has changed a bit since you left, it's a bit more dead. :/ But in return, there's alot less people that remembers you. :P

Well, that's kind of cool. I don't mind if people remember me, as long as they forgive me for whatever stupid things I did, and we can just move on. I am sorry for the stupid shit I did, but I've changed that because I don't want any of that crap to happen again.

*Gose off to check it out*
By the way: I seem to remember a UT clan was in order . . . any ideas on when on will be possible to start?

Well, I don't necessarily have the time to orgainze the entired thing myself. What I really want is a person to lead the thing. There are a lot of people interesting, all it would take is a person who is very enthused about it and wants to go around emailing everyone who has expressed interest. I don't imagine it would be that hard, but so far, I haven't found anyone who was dedicated enough.

-------------------------------------

Well last time i checked, RTS was still on the front page, so thats gotta count for something...

There might be people who like my game, but there are a lot of people who don't like me. There's a difference.

At 6/24/02 03:54 AM, Calderon wrote: (Pic of Winamp with my favorite skiin)

Dude, I like those skins that have pictures and stuff on them, but they usually only look good with the equalizer on, and I usually don't have it open, so I only get the skins that are like futuristic and/or plain yet cool looking.

------------------------------------

At 6/24/02 08:35 AM, RandomHeroDunn wrote: I used to have them all organized, but i got downloading so many of them, then my folder just up and dissapeared on me one day. That was a sad day.

Omg dude, I lost a whole bunch of MP3's back in the day too... that has got to be one of the suckiest things ever... I feel ya man.

:I do get anal about the filename, they have to be "Artist - Songtitle.mp3."

Yeah, I'm the exact same way. I like them organized so I can find the song right when I want it.

-------------------------------------

At 6/24/02 05:18 PM, Captain_Bob wrote: 2532 MP3s, 10.2 GB. (I have most of my CDs recorded on my computer) All most all of these are at 160kbps, highly organized. I have a folder for each artist, then a subfolder for each album, under the main music folder. The file names in the subfolder are just the name of the song. In the main folder I have all the songs ofc artists I just have 1 or 2 songs of, and the filename is "Artist - Song Name". I also have 270 AVIs and MPGs, 11.5 GB. Videos include Lord of The Rings, which I've had since January, which is 1.2 GB itself, very good quality. I also have every South Park episode. An 80 GB hard drive is a nice thing to have :) I also have the majority of my MP3s archived on MP3 CDs.
My favorite P2P program to use is WinMX I also use Kazza Lite.

Damn! I think you are definately the winner here! Heheheh. That's a lot of organization man!

At 6/24/02 07:59 AM, esspat wrote: i don't know the exact number of mp3's (i could find out if ya want), but i've got about 40 gigs of em.

Damn! I only 20 gigs of harddrive space total... hehe.

At 6/24/02 11:16 AM, JSONICC wrote: its gonna be HTML based with DHTML effects
im going to look into flash and xml

Sounds sweet.

were going to keep the team small so about 7 or 8 of us

I wouldn't be able to help anyway, I'm terribly busy. But good luck with it.

At 6/24/02 02:20 AM, mattymetro wrote: nah, dude.. I just trim my shit so that its really short.. dont shave that shit..

Oh of course, ya gotta trim. Otherwise it itches like hell anyway.

Dude, I honestly don't know what people like that are trying to accomplish. For real! What are they hoping for? Or is it pleasing enough to just make the pointless and moronic review itself?

I really don't understand why people like the drama. Seriously, why can't people just be nice to each other and be happy. Geeze...

At 6/23/02 09:01 AM, JSONICC wrote: Im working on a new flash site called

Battle Flash ::

What kind of site will it be? Are you going to have interactive Flash with XML or anything like that?

I don't know XML, I'm just wondering.

I am so happy. Ever since I got cable modem my computer has been plagued with problems, and I just now finally got it fixed after almost a year of issues! So now I'm on a downloading spree using kazaa.

Anyway, I have almost 500.

Also, do you organize them or just slap them on your computer? I put them in different folders by genre and I make sure they are songs I like and that they are labeled properly. I might be a bit of a freak when it comes to that, but it's fun to have an awesome list of music or whatever mood I'm in.

It's especially fun when I stumble upon songs I haven't heard in ages and I reminisce about the times associate with those songs. *sigh*

At 6/24/02 12:33 AM, JmBd wrote: Man your weiner is so small, you shaved your pubes and you accidently shaved off your penis.

Ouch! Poor guy...

Dude, I thought about shaving everything down there, but I heard when it grows back the stubble itches you like crazy...

At 6/24/02 01:44 AM, JmBd wrote: Where the hell did you go, and hey. Back in 2000 My movies got blammed within one hour HAHAHHA

Heheh. I don't seem to remember you. You remember me? I left because people seemed to have an issue with me. I'd like to come back and be on good terms with everyone. Then I can release all the projects I've been working on and whatnot.

sizzler wrote: It's good to know that at least the really good stuff will be mentioned again, in some way or another.

Yeah, I feel ya. That's what Wade's job is, to catch the good stuff that slips through.

BTW, my movie wasn't all that great, I just felt like venting. But then again, I did work hard on it, and the animation is smooth. You can check it out on my site if you feel like it:

www.entropicorder.com/flash/movies/

I think minority report looks good. The idea of law enforcement by predicting the future is a really interesting idea. It's cool because I know as ideal as it sounds, there's no way it would ever work.

I think Tom Cruise is cool, he looks like Squall from Final Fantasy. Although Vanilla Sky really did freak me out after seeing it.

Is it just me, or does it seem like your flash entries just don't get a chance like back in the day? Nowadays when you submit something, it slips off the most recent 50 in less than a day.

I submitted a movie called Pesky Eyeball, and I believe it got around 50 views before leaving the most recent, never to be seen again (except by the people from my site who obviously made it a point to vote it off).

hahaha

This is some funny shit.

At 3/2/02 12:54 PM, stickgrounds wrote: Well if you live in Winnipeg then pay will be well i dunno yet but i have some of my friends working on it too so i'll have to check into that

Stickgrounds is basically a crappy site that can be easily replaced with the stick section of Newgrounds and stickdeath.com. Those are both already there, so goodluck in making your site anything more useful than what already exists.

At 3/2/02 12:56 PM, Gappy wrote: I want some actionscript from a .swf
How do you do it?

You're stupid. You don't can't do it and you shouldn't if you could. There are plenty of tutorials out there. If an author doesn't want you to see their code, then they don't want you to. Don't post here and expect people not to bitch at you, especially if you ask them not to.

I don't care where you're trying to steal it from, stealing fucking pisses me off in any sense of the word. Go get some real talent.

At 3/2/02 12:16 PM, Shammer wrote: I say Monsters Inc. without a doubt. Shrek is too kiddie.

I think Shrek had more sexual inuendos in it, but I personally liked Monsters Inc. better. I thought there were some nice bits of cleverness in it, more so than in Shrek. I liked the characters and the graphics were great.

At 2/28/02 05:33 PM, -Diman- wrote:

At 2/28/02 04:51 PM, EntropicOrder wrote:
Wrong! It was "prune".

Dammit! I was thinking of that atfirst, but I changed my mind... Ok, now it's your turn, two words:

?
?
?????????
?
?
?

Can I buy a vowel?

At 2/28/02 03:00 PM, -Diman- wrote:

At 2/28/02 02:49 PM, EntropicOrder wrote:

At 2/28/02 12:17 PM, -Diman- wrote: pr0n!
Be sure to spread this over the internet! It's the best pr0n! ever!!

?????

Oh, a wordgame! Let's see, five letters horizontal... Could it be.... "pr0n!"!

Wrong! It was "prune".

At 2/28/02 02:57 PM, Waterdog17 wrote: You will be missed. You have been bitchslapped to the firey depths of hell. Wade Fulp cut your life short. You will be missed.

Wade Flop
August 29th 2001- Febuary 28th 2002

May he burn to a crisp in the firey depths.

Who are we talking about again, I forget...

At 2/28/02 12:17 PM, -Diman- wrote: pr0n!
Be sure to spread this over the internet! It's the best pr0n! ever!!

?????

At 2/28/02 12:30 AM, Waterdog17 wrote:

At 2/28/02 12:29 AM, WadeFlop wrote: I'll be helping on some music for GBA. And I don't know how cranberry contributed to the development.

Fuck wrong Username, Sorry :-P

I cannot believe you have yet another fucking Screenname. That is just ridiculous man...

At 2/27/02 02:41 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: okay, one last thing... eo, you said that things lean AWAY from entropy.. could you give me some examples?

Well, if you look a systems in seclusion without taking into account the entire cause/effects of the system, then it can be considered to be anti-entropic themselves. Evolution is an anti-entropic phenomenom. I would say that so is growing and reproducing. I'm pretty tired at this hour though, so I may not be exactly coherent...

Like I said, if you look at the entire system though, the sun is burning up and wasting energy way more than what we are able to harness and use. Ie, the sun is burning up faster than we are becoming more complex, and therefore the system in it's entirity is entropic.

At 2/27/02 12:04 AM, MountainDewClock wrote: The universe itself is non existent. What we consider the universe is all the stars we know of.

No, actually, philosophers and scientists alike have long reliazed that there is much more to life and the universe than what we can directly observe. As a matter of fact, most people learn this lession in infancy. I don't know what stage of infancy you are still in...

nothin like that will happen in this life time, though humans only have a small time left for survival

No one said it would happen in human's life time, but that doesn't make it unworthy of discussion. It can't happen in our life time because it isn't possible for complex life to exist in a universe very near of entropy, let alone reaching it.

The universe is just a bunch of stars huh? What about the planets that make up the universe ?

SMARTASS

At 2/26/02 10:59 PM, Septimus wrote: Physisists defined a specific average mass density as the cut off between the big crunch and cold death.

Hehe, that is some very nice information there septy. It's all so clear and scientific, I don't even have anything constructive to add or comment on!

Also, if there are multiple universes, they would all have to suffer the same fate. If they are based off of the same original template, they would all have identical mass densities, ergo would end the same way. Now, if they started out differently, they could end differently...

Is it possible to have universes completely irrelevant of each other? Aren't all bodies related to one another by a gravitational force no matter how small? If universes are related at all, does that really make them a seperate universe? If they are relevant, can one freeze while another is still expanding?

At 2/26/02 11:39 PM, Thorfalcon wrote: Before I begin my ignorant spiel, I feel that I should really thank you, EO...

Thanks man, I really do like this topic :)

Okay, I have a question. If there ARE multiple universes, then what exists in the space between them?

That would be complete nothingness. It seems aparent to me that there has to be complete nothingness. If there wasn't some sort of nothingness, then the universe would be a giant block of solidity. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's all dark matter...

It is interesting to say that there are mutliple universes. I suppose it would be possible that amidst all that vast nothingness that extends beyound our own universe could be another universe that exists irrelevant of ours. It seems that if it is relevant of ours that it would be part of our own universe. But, doesn't the Law of Gravity (whatever it's called, the one that says all objects have a gravitational force toward each other) assume that all particles are impacted by each other, no matter how far away (even though that force may be puny). Just an idea.

Look at the world around us. Everything is in a constant state of growing disarray. This is the law of entropy, and there is no proof against it! We are not evolving creatures! Yes, we've made medical advances that protect us from germs, but we're no higher a society than the Romans or say the Babylonians were. We fall to the same traps that they did... Anyway, that's taking a much to societal perspecive I suppose. Yet I knew that if I brought up entropy as a universal constant, then someone would argue, "But look at human evolution." So, that's where that came from.

Well, I agree with your conclusion, but not your theory to arrive at it. Actually, everything we experience in our life is actually tending away from entropy, but that most certainly does not disprove entropy at all. All systems tend toward entropy. When you look at life on earth getting more complex, you have to step back and look at the big picture. The energy from the sun is fueling our evolution. The entropic part is that there is way more energy lost than is used in running the earth. So, in the big equation, it is still breaking down.

You were right about the societal perspective. We may not be advancing morally, but complex structures don't necessarily have to have morals. Besides, morals are completely relative.

I guess at this point it might make sense to bring up an article I read not too long ago about entropy and the death of a spinning top or coin, and ask what you scientific minds think of it...

in fact, the closer it gets to the end, the faster it spins... its actually GAINING energy before it dies...

This is interesting. It doesn't seem to me that the coin is gaining energy... I think it only gains speed because of gravity and the lack of centrifical force.

=======================================================================

These are a lot of interesting points, but my main question for this topic is getting a little sidetracked. Let me reprase my question so that we may attack it directly.

Is it possible to have infinite time if our current universe ends by freezing (assuming there is only one universe)? When the universe ends, the particles would still exist, only not moving. Still, time would progress endlessly with no movement. The real question arises from the beginning of the universe.

Was there nothingness before this universe? If so, does time really exist if there is nothing?

If there wasn't nothingness, wouldn't whatever existed be another universe, therefore countering the idea that universes end by freezing (because if that one froze it wouldn't have had the capacity to create our current universe)?

At 2/26/02 11:18 PM, CranberryClock wrote: Heh..Dont forget to credit me! im the one helping with it all!

Dude, I don't even have a clue who Cranberry is... I'm so lost... are you falcon? If so, then I just want you to know that all you have done to help is show me links. PsychoGoldfish has already helped me more than you have, and he doesn't even know how to code GBA!

Two theories about how a universe ends are as follows:

1. The universe, once fully expanded, collapses again, in which case it has the ability to cause another Big Bang, another universe, and so on.

2. The universe expands until it can't expand anymore, and then it freezes in it's most broken down state.

(I'm not saying these are the only two, nor am I saying I know everything there is to know about these theories. I'm only stating the theories.)

Now, suppose we assume infinite time. It works very well with the theory 1 because universes continue to be created and destroyed.

But, with the second theory, is it possible for our assumption to still be true (that time is infinite)? Suppose our current universe ends by freezing, meaning that our universe is the last universe that will ever exist. Does that mean that there could have been universes before it that ended by collapsing? If our not, then our universe must have been the first and the last.

If this is the case, then how did the beginning of this universe happen, and what was before that?

Maybe theory 1 only works with an atheist point of view, saying that time and matter always existed, in infinite time. And maybe theory 2 only works with the God perspective, that our before our universe, there was only God, then he created the universe, then the universe ended and we all went to heaven. (But actually, humans would end long before the universe ended, because our level of complexity cannot survive in a universe that is nearing complete entropy)

At 2/26/02 02:10 PM, cableshaft wrote:

At 2/26/02 04:48 AM, ImfromheII wrote: Since matter, time and space all had a beginning,

This is an assumption. It's possible that life, the universe, and everything has always existed.

Damn cableshaft, I wanted to be the one to say that. :)

I support the idea that time is infinite in both directions, without a beginning or an end. My theory works best with the idea that universes explode and collapse in succession. Ie, there are infinite universes. But, I suppose it works fine with the idea that our universe will expand until it freezes, yet still exists. (I'm gonna make another topic about the implications of this)

So my guess is life has always existed, but I've found, the more I think about it, I probably shouldn't have started to think about it at all :)

The way I see it is that "life" (as we define it) hasn't always existed, but that matter and energy have always existed. Life comes and goes. The reason I say "life" is because to me, life is nothing more than a complex arrangement and chemical interactions of certain particles. I don't distinguish life from anything else, other than by complexity. I personally believe that you can make a computer feel emotions given enough knowledge about hardware and artificial intelligence. Once that is done, there will be no difference between animate and inanimate, other than the fact that "it moves".

If I made Rooftop Skater for GBA, it would mostly be for fun, for learning, and for fans who want to buy it for the hell of it.

I just downloaded all the necessary software, and I got a Hello World game working.

I actually don't think the game will take that long if I focus and work hard a lot. I guess it all depends on how many new moves and improvements I want to release and stuff. I already know C++, so we'll see how it works out.