I think i must be an uncle, because whenever i walk past anyone they always say to me "you're so un-cule"

Oblgatory drunken post

I'm wasted off of real, Northern ales so bear with me.

You know wghat's the worst? People who accuse security cameras of being 'Orwellian'.

I mean, I assume that they're talking about 1984, the scariest novel in existance IMO. Clearly they're referencing the telescreens, trying to sound clever by referring to a classic pieve of modern literature. And OK, the novel features surveilence quite prominently - of course it does. You can't have a horrifyingly totalitarian regime if it doesn't watch its citezens, to make sure they're following orders. It's pointless.

Surveilence is a necessity for Orwell's novel to work - it isn't something which inevitably results in totalitarianism. Totalitarianism requires surveilence, true, but it also requires basic competence, something which modern government is clearly lacking.

The really annoying thing here is that 1984 contains many themes which are completely relevant today, most notably the persuit of power for its own sake rather than as a means through which to better society. The fact that people insist on reducint it to no more than a paranoid cricicism of CCTV is nothing short of bullshit.

Anyway, I'm a bit drunk, so don't worry if my points aren't that well argued. But please don't reduce a fantastic work of 20th century literature to a superficial criticism of security cameras. It's unjust. I'm back off to drink for another nine hours.

Also, security cameras can be crucial to ensure the safety of others, so if it is "Orwellian," it is also necessary in today's society.
amirite?

Also Delta can't handle his weed.

At 6/20/09 10:10 AM, Xeptic wrote:

At 6/20/09 09:01 AM, knugen wrote: Oops :O

Well, that was a let-down... Where's the epicness?

The epicness lies in the lack of epicness.

4000 is not that big of a deal though, I will make it up to you after 999 more ;)

At 6/20/09 02:51 PM, Paranoia wrote: You know wghat's the worst? People who accuse security cameras of being 'Orwellian'.

I think it is important in ones life to have things to moan about. Cameras do good, but you still have to moan about them. Its just how it works. If you didn't moan about random things, you'd be left with nothing to say in awkward silences.

At 6/20/09 03:46 PM, CybexALT wrote: I think it is important in ones life to have things to moan about. Cameras do good, but you still have to moan about them. Its just how it works. If you didn't moan about random things, you'd be left with nothing to say in awkward silences.

There's nothing like a good drunken rant on something you know nothing about to make your day.

QUICK QUESTION

I've nott coded in a while so i've almost completely forgotten some AS stuff. I'm hittesting 1 object against multiple others using a for loop and just telling it to hit test against all the objects in an array to stop the player from moving infrunt/behind of them.

Anyway, how would i test to see if the player is hitting none of the objects in the array?

I know the answer is simple but i'm slighly drunk and my brain aint working straight.

At 6/20/09 05:22 PM, Depredation wrote: Anyway, how would i test to see if the player is hitting none of the objects in the array?

Don't you have to add the "!" in front of the hitTest? Like
if (!this.hitTest(that)){
Something like that, right?

At 6/20/09 05:30 PM, KyleDaFox wrote:

At 6/20/09 05:22 PM, Depredation wrote: Anyway, how would i test to see if the player is hitting none of the objects in the array?

Don't you have to add the "!" in front of the hitTest? Like
if (!this.hitTest(that)){
Something like that, right?

Yeah i know that. That just means if it's not hit testing that object. I need to find if it's not hitting any of the objects in the array, not just object "i".

At 6/20/09 05:31 PM, Depredation wrote: Yeah i know that. That just means if it's not hit testing that object. I need to find if it's not hitting any of the objects in the array, not just object "i".

Have a boolean flag..

var hitting:Boolean = false;
for(a:int=0; a<10; a++){
if(this.hitTest(_root["banana"+a])){
hitting = false;
}
}
if(!hitting){
trace("You ain't hitting nothing, bro");
}

At 6/20/09 05:37 PM, liaaaam wrote: var hitting:Boolean = false;
for(a:int=0; a<10; a++){
if(this.hitTest(_root["banana"+a])){
hitting = false;
}
}
if(!hitting){
trace("You ain't hitting nothing, bro");
}

You ain't hitting nothing with that code, bro.

What he meant is first definning a variable as false, then looping through all your objects and verifying hittest, while only defining your variable as true if a hittest returns true, without defining as false when hittest is false. Then, at the end of the loop, the value of your variable doesn't change if there are no hittests, and changes if there is 1 or more hittests. Seriously you could've done that on your own, it's not very complicated :p

At 6/20/09 06:12 PM, Toast wrote: What he meant is first definning a variable as false, then looping through all your objects and verifying hittest, while only defining your variable as true if a hittest returns true, without defining as false when hittest is false. Then, at the end of the loop, the value of your variable doesn't change if there are no hittests, and changes if there is 1 or more hittests. Seriously you could've done that on your own, it's not very complicated :p

Alchohol dos funny things to the brain, 11 1/2 stellaas would have the same effect on most people. DAnke though, i'll do that now, i've actually done this a million times, htae it when i cant think properly.

At 6/20/09 05:37 PM, liaaaam wrote:

Have a boolean flag..

var hitting:Boolean = false;
for(a:int=0; a<10; a++){
if(this.hitTest(_root["banana"+a])){
hitting = false;
}
}
if(!hitting){
trace("You ain't hitting nothing, bro");
}

So what he really REALLY meant was...

var hit:Boolean =false;
for(var i = 0; i <arr.length; i++){
if(obj.hitTest(arr[i])){
hit=true;
break;
}
}
if(!hit){
// none of them are touching.
}

At 6/20/09 07:08 PM, Coolio-Niato wrote: var hit:Boolean =false;
for(var i = 0; i <arr.length; i++){
if(obj.hitTest(arr[i])){
hit=true;
break;
}
}
if(!hit){
// none of them are touching.
}

What does the break do? I never really figured that out.

At 6/20/09 06:12 PM, Toast wrote: Stuff

Darn it, I didn't notice I put hitting=false in the hittest, how silly. He got it though =D

At 6/20/09 07:13 PM, KyleDaFox wrote: What does the break do? I never really figured that out.

It stops the current for loop. It's more efficient than running through the rest of the loop if you already had the info you needed :P

At 6/20/09 07:21 PM, liaaaam wrote: It stops the current for loop. It's more efficient than running through the rest of the loop if you already had the info you needed :P

Ahh, that may be helpful, XD

At 6/20/09 07:28 PM, KyleDaFox wrote:

At 6/20/09 07:21 PM, liaaaam wrote: It stops the current for loop. It's more efficient than running through the rest of the loop if you already had the info you needed :P

Ahh, that may be helpful, XD

on the same note, continue is useful too. It skips over the rest of the loop body, but then goes back to the conditional portion.

while(a++ > b){
if(b == 0) continue;

//lots of code
}

is similar to

while(a++ > b){
if(b != 0){
//lots of code
}
}

Hey, I made a wireworld simulation :D use the dropdown box thing to choose the type of cell you want, and draw on the left to do stuff. the rest is obvious :) I also made a rule 30 and rule 110 sim (which can be easily switched into any other basic 1D rules) but they aren't as impressive. try making AND / OR / XOR gates with it :)

Heres's the source if anyone wants it.

MGS3

After 14 hours and 6 minutes of hard ass work, i beat MGS3:Subsistence. Ill have to say that itss better rthen the fourth on. sorry im also like half drunk thts why u cant understnad me if u cant/. but now time to stay up and beat the first mgs

At 6/21/09 01:34 AM, Blackfang wrote: MGS3

After 14 hours and 6 minutes of hard ass work, i beat MGS3:Subsistence. Ill have to say that itss better rthen the fourth on. sorry im also like half drunk thts why u cant understnad me if u cant/. but now time to stay up and beat the first mgs

14 fucking hours?! I beat it 7 WITH Tsuchinoko and at least Bear ranking.

Probably because I only own a PS2 as my gaming console so it's the only game I play.

At 6/21/09 01:46 AM, Zyphonee wrote: 14 fucking hours?! I beat it 7 WITH Tsuchinoko and at least Bear ranking.

Probably because I only own a PS2 as my gaming console so it's the only game I play.

lol i was playin on a ps3 and i was on the medium difficutly and i olny played mgs4 before

At 6/21/09 02:23 AM, Blackfang wrote:

At 6/21/09 01:46 AM, Zyphonee wrote: 14 fucking hours?! I beat it 7 WITH Tsuchinoko and at least Bear ranking.

Probably because I only own a PS2 as my gaming console so it's the only game I play.

lol i was playin on a ps3 and i was on the medium difficutly and i olny played mgs4 before

Try completing the game in less than 5 hours, no kills, no alerts, no continues, no health items used, on the highest difficulty... And no kills as you probably know includes no killing bosses as well. I think that was the Fox rank.

A guy once did all that without any camouflage at all....That's some crazy stuff there. Let me see if i can find him.

You know what's a game that takes really long to play through? Front Mission 3. Fifty hours, with emulator quicksaves (so not counting the time you waste losing levels etc); it's a single CD.

At 6/20/09 03:05 PM, Paranoia wrote: Also Delta can't handle his weed.

eh?

At 6/20/09 06:17 PM, Depredation wrote: Alchohol dos funny things to the brain

At 6/20/09 02:51 PM, Paranoia wrote: Oblgatory drunken post

Speaking of alcohol, I never understood why people drink. It's damaging for the brain, it makes you stupid for a few hours and screws around with your memory. So why drink? does it taste good, feel good to be drunk? I drank beer on several occasions and it always tastes really bad. Now I know that's just personal opinion, but still. I might be wrong but I think that many people only drink because everyone does it. I hope I never start liking alcohol because I already do bad enough things to my brain as it is.

At 6/21/09 07:33 AM, Toast wrote:

At 6/20/09 06:17 PM, Depredation wrote: Alchohol dos funny things to the brain

At 6/20/09 02:51 PM, Paranoia wrote: Oblgatory drunken post

Speaking of alcohol, I never understood why people drink. It's damaging for the brain, it makes you stupid for a few hours and screws around with your memory. So why drink? does it taste good, feel good to be drunk? I drank beer on several occasions and it always tastes really bad. Now I know that's just personal opinion, but still. I might be wrong but I think that many people only drink because everyone does it. I hope I never start liking alcohol because I already do bad enough things to my brain as it is.

alcohol doesn't damege the brain..only the liver and you throat if you puke..beer's tast will grow on you..and yes it is really fun to drink unless you get really drunk and puke..
tuna
Tuna is awesome i don't like fosh excepy tuna and in sushi

At 6/21/09 08:04 AM, patu1 wrote: alcohol doesn't damege the brain..only the liver and you throat if you puke..beer's tast will grow on you..and yes it is really fun to drink unless you get really drunk and puke..

Long-term alcohol abuse will damage your brain tissue. Think Korsakov syndrome.

Am I socially accepted now that I'm level 25?

At 6/21/09 08:30 AM, KyleDaFox wrote: Am I socially accepted now that I'm level 25?

The higher your level, the less socially accepted you will become.