deathbycrowbar

Clavus, I actually cannot wait to play your gamemode.

I personally am not a big fan of your signatures. Your maps are cool though.

7/10 Not Bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiZjCuyXk8

7/10 quite liked it, extra point for the cool video.

The foreground grass was intentional. I think it gives a cool effect. I did take a picture of the same view without the grass though.

I took this at Southwold a couple of weeks ago: EDIT: Shit, sorry about double post.

<3

they pick what they want not what you like I am Legend is fairly plot heavy though and has an arty ending.

Erm, you said no serious movies and then you pick I Am Legend.... It is a great film but the book is better. *Inb4 "lol you read books lolololol"*

When I was admin this guy was really helpful and friendly. IMHO he is a fantastic candidate. Good Luck.

Say one game that have better sounds. None. Good, now shut up. Call of Duty Black Ops Arma 2. Also if you want to bring a thread back to life, telling people that contribute to it to shut up is a bad idea.

If games never took ideas from other games, the entire industry would stagnate.

"Kickass" would be perfect for this. It's funny, loads of action and not too plot heavy.

Why do we want back to the moon? Been there done that EDIT: If we want to live there we have to learn to make water out of moon rock I saw it on Discovery channel long time ago They made water out of moon dust! But for some reson NASA dinnt want it.... And btw, the cut didnt affect so much. The trip to Mars is still under planning, and before that, NASA is going to land on some asteroid which is coming "towards"(near) Earth. I wouldn't say we've been there done that with the moon. The Apollo landings were for status more than anything. There is still alot to learn about the moon and potentially, a vast mineral wealth to be exploited so it would make more sense to explore the moon further before heading off to mars.

People could be on the moon again soon if Obama hadn't cut Nasa's moon landing program... :/

@Nobana Ok I was just guessing the speed. Regardless, can a human surive travelling at 10% light speed? No. Anyway. I'm quitting this topic. I don't think it's worth arguing with you anymore. Your 'arguments' are loose assertions and tenuous facts you've strung together by watching your television and using google. The best tool you have is right inside your head. Learn to use it and maybe you'll become a bit more popular and your arguments may begin to make logical sense rather than being a bombardment of trivial facts.

A black hole won't transport you to another dimension, it simply transfers your mass energy back into the universe as pure energy. An engine running on nuclear blasts might reach the star nearest to us (other than the sun) in say, 400000 years It's not impossible, but is it ethical to pour money into space exploration when half the world can only just afford to eat?

Fixed. And agreed. @ Crowbar, who knows what humanity will be able to do in future? Certainly not me or you, none of us. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't hypothesise. This theoretical future of magical things you are dreaming of won't appear if people like you keep saying we cannot think about and work towards it yet. I am expressing my opinion that even if people start working towards it tomorrow (which they won't), we will never develop faster than light travel and/or explore the universe. What about the 3 Billion people living in poverty without these delightful creations. Is humanity just going to rush off into an exciting future and leave half its population behind? Humanity cannot advance towards the stars until we have sorted out all the problems on our own planet.

The thread has evolved into an interesting and thought-provoking debate. Deal with it. I'll believe this theoretical future when I see it. But I ask you this, light is energy. It is a pure form of energy that can move without friction or deceleration. How could something possibly be faster than light?

(Ending quote pyramid) Nothing can travel faster than light. At the speed of light it would take 100,000+ years to cross the galaxy. Do you really think humanity will achieve this bearing in mind the earth has just 150 million years or so left.

Insignificant is a word given to describe that particular feeling. The word itself is irrelevant, it is merely a label for that particular feeling a sentient being can experience. This feeling could be felt by any sentient being in the universe, the label given to it by humans who speak the English language is not related to the feeling itself. In logical argument form, my belief works like this: Premise 1. We exist. Premise 2. The universe exists. Premise 3. Interactions and forces transferred throughout the universe do so by means of energy released through the movement of atomic and subatomic particles. Premise 4. Our planet and our bodies are also controlled by the movement of these particles but they move in such a way that creates consciousness. Premise 5. Something that is 'insignificant' is a thing that is very small and of little importance in relation to another thing. Premise 6. The number of particles and interactions that make up our bodies are impossibly small in relation to the universe. Premise 7. The energy and 'effort' (both mental and physical) that we release during our lifetimes is also impossibly small in relation to the universe. Premise 8. As the universe is so massive, maybe infinite, it is likely other beings as intelligent as ourselves exist. Conclusion: We are impossibly small and release a miniscule amount of energy in relation to the rest of the universe. We are also not the only sentient and thinking beings in the universe so in that respect we are not unique. For both these reasons, we are insignificant. Actually I meant "insignificant" as a term (not only as a word) doesn't exist in the universe. The feeling we have is because there is a massive amount of information out there which we haven't collected or reached yet! For example, if you would relate our significance to our own solar system, it must be a lot more than the whole universe right? But why would it be? The distance to the edge of our solar system is huge, no person would travel that distance. Yet we find it smaller because we know so much about our solar system. Now imagine in the future, if the human race can travel between many systems, even though there is such a massive amount of information, every system will feel like it's next door. Even now the internet contains more information than one man can absorb in his life, but because we can reach it, it doesn't feel 'too big' for us. Insignificance is nothing but an emotion. If the human race expands, everything comes closer. If everyone here was arguing in a formal, polite manner such as this, the thread would be fine. I accept your point but the universe really is much bigger than you or I could possibly comprehend. Humanity will never be able to cross the galaxy, let alone leave it. Consider this first, then remember that even the galaxy is impossibly small compared to the universe. The only reason we cannot recognise how tiny we are in the grand scheme of things is because we cannot comprehend the great gulfs of space that surround us. To reach the same level of knowledge we have about the solar system when it comes to the universe, we would have to study every star and every galaxy. We're talking more stars than there are bytes of data on the internet. Humanity will never, don't kid yourslef on this one, humanity WILL NEVER have the technology to comprehend our universe. Surely a significant entity in the universe would be able to understand the space it occupies?

Insignificant is a word given to describe that particular feeling. The word itself is irrelevant, it is merely a label for that particular feeling a sentient being can experience. This feeling could be felt by any sentient being in the universe, the label given to it by humans who speak the English language is not related to the feeling itself. In logical argument form, my belief works like this: Premise 1. We exist. Premise 2. The universe exists. Premise 3. Interactions and forces transferred throughout the universe do so by means of energy released through the movement of atomic and subatomic particles. Premise 4. Our planet and our bodies are also controlled by the movement of these particles but they move in such a way that creates consciousness. Premise 5. Something that is 'insignificant' is a thing that is very small and of little importance in relation to another thing. Premise 6. The number of particles and interactions that make up our bodies are impossibly small in relation to the universe. Premise 7. The energy and 'effort' (both mental and physical) that we release during our lifetimes is also impossibly small in relation to the universe. Premise 8. As the universe is so massive, maybe infinite, it is likely other beings as intelligent as ourselves exist. Conclusion: We are impossibly small and release a miniscule amount of energy in relation to the rest of the universe. We are also not the only sentient and thinking beings in the universe so in that respect we are not unique. For both these reasons, we are insignificant.

Religion has the potential to make society better and, in many cases, it does. However, as humanity has witnessed over the past few thousands years, religion can also cause conflicts. This is a shame as I believe religion is good for society even though I am not religious myself. My personal belief can be summed up as nihilism, the world and its inhabitants are of no importance in the grand scheme of things. This insignificance leads me to hold a feeling of indifference towards the universe and its inhabitants. i.e I don't care how the universe got here because I won't be conscious within it for much longer.

Copycat

Alot. Since you can save things created in notepad into most file extentions (.dll, batch file etc) .sys Basically anything that doesn't need compiling can be written and saved with notepad.