Quote from atlantian :

god damn it! just have the devs integrate the Tweak tool into LFS, if fans made a tuning tool... how hard is if for the LFS DEVS?!?!

It's not a question of difficulty. It's a question of desire. What you should be asking is: do the devs WANT a tune tool in their game? If they don't (and so far it looks like they don't), deal with it I sincerely hope they never do: put a tuning tool in LFS and it instantly becomes like every other ricer NFS piece of shit game out there.

Because they have no idea how to setup or drive the XRT or XRR, one presumes

I find the best way to avoid stuff that shits you off (stop me if this is too damned obvious) is to avoid places where you know you'll find such things, such as (in this instance) threads with 'drift' or 'tune' in the title, drift servers and the entire Improvement Suggestions forum in general Unless, of course, you enjoy installing new orifices in fresh n00bs in which case, go right ahead and install your brains out because it can be very entertaining for some us, in a very bloody-minded 'Christians vs Lions' kind of way

Pull your head in. Did you miss this?

Quote from Agapanthus :

Serious question, I don't know much about it, I'm not trying to wind anyone up.

He seemed genuinely curious to me

Believe it or not, it's actually possible that someone on t3h internets didn't know all about dorifto and asked a legitimate question in order to get an understanding of it. Didn't really deserve a smackdown imho.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid answers - especially those answers which don't even answer the question or contribute to the discussion.

You don't see Danes or Australians or British or Germans or Canadians committing such atrocities in such large numbers with anything approaching the same frequency, so I suppose it's logical to assume that, somewhere deep in the "American soul", there's something dark and twisted that isn't as prevalent elsewhere in the world. Leaving gun laws completely aside (because crazy people will always find a way to inflict cruelty and misery, method being irrelevant), the question needs to be asked - what is this dark stain on the soul and why don't we see it elsewhere?

Don't get me wrong - I like America and the Americans I've met and I do not wish to tar all 300 million of them with the same brush. I just look at all the shooting sprees, insane fundamentalists like the soldier-hating, funeral-picketing Westboro Baptist Church and those who murder abortion doctors (and the considerable power & influence of the fundie religious right in general), the large numbers of insane cults (see previous), the world-beating serial-killers, the over-the-top nationalism, the constant wars, the (still!) overt racism (in some parts), soul-darkening things like lethal injections and electric chairs and think "what the hell is wrong with this beautiful country?" I feel sorry for normal, everyday, moderate Americans who think the same things but can't mention them because they'll be branded 'unAmerican' (whatever that is).

If you're American, don't take that as a dig at your country. It's an observation from someone impartial. It's a perspective a lot of people share and it's not just about what happens in the US. The negatives about America invariably seem to be expressed by whoever's in charge at the time, which always impacts the rest of the world. We've had 8 years of macho, faith-based posturing, misgovernance and hideous violence that's affected the entire world and I think some of us may be worried that there's still room to slide further downhill. Every time another shocking story like this latest shooting emerges from the US, we think "what the hell is going on over there?"

/me waits for someone to come in and say "if only the students were armed too..."
/me decides right now not to get into a gun control discussion

Bah, ringtones. Anyone who's ever paid for one deserves to be scammed. I write my own
http://ekranoplan.org/media/harpsick.mp3

Gutless ****ing bitch. Should've saved everyone some grief and done the topping part first. He might've started a shootout with the cops though, but that's basically suicide anyway.

Why do these mentalist gun-freaks always feel the need to waste innocent people before topping themselves? It's not like they can sit there and appreciate all the media attention after they're dead.

Quadruple post = fail. I'm sure you're aware of the 'edit' and 'delete' functions...

Used to be fiscally tighter. Used to is the key phrase here. The Reps also used to be all about small government! Tell that to Homeland Security and all the other layers of federal beauracracy that the Bush II regime has slapped on top of everything else. They also, ostensibly at least, used to be about keeping the government out of private affairs - tell that to the telcos/ISPs that are about to be granted retroactive immunity for illegally spying on US citizens in their millions.

The sad thing is there's not really much difference between the GOP and the Dems right now: both seem pretty happy to talk about giving Iran what-for and "spreading democracy" (as has been done so successfully before in thriving, free nations like their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and any other number of repressive, regressive medieval religious dictatorships). Both are all about "security" (both forgetting that the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop participating in it). Neither seem too concerned with discussing actual things like sane foreign policy, healthcare, war veteran's rights or any number of other important topics. It's no surprise though: as usual, it's a popularity contest and it's about who's more 'electable', not who who deserves to be elected. It's about who you like, not about what they stand for. It's a bunch of goddam stage-managed sound-bites designed to confirm what a candidate's supporters already think they know. With the glitz and ribbons and events in stadiums it bears more similarity to American Idol than an actual election. And the cash they blow! Such expense for (at best) a 50% voter turnout. Imagine what these spoiled rich kids would spend if they had the entire eligible voting populace to appeal to?

I used to rant a lot about Bush on these pages. Sure, he's a dangerous, clueless fundie halfwit who's lied, cheated and snaked his way to the top (with Daddy's help) and has made the entire planet more dangerous for everyone living on it, but (barring some catastrophe which forces the Whitehouse to declare martial law) his reign ends in 10 months (praise Jeebers). That got me thinking, though - what will change, even if a Dem gets elected? Will poor people get a living wage? Will they be able to afford hospital bills? Will social security still exist if they fall on hard times? Will the US stop its near-annual bombing of any country it pleases for any reason it can make plausible? I came to the conclusion "no". Regardless which side of the US political coin they've been on, US presidents since WW2 invariably end up making war on somebody (overtly or covertly), the poor & middle class always pay for it in blood or taxes and the top 1% - those who can afford the best lobbyists - lap up the profits. I think the only thing that will change with a Democrat president is that FOX Noise will actually start criticising the government. My problem (I guess it's always been there under the surface) is a political system that encourages non-participation by the people who are meant to own it by making running as a candidate cost-prohibitive for anyone who isn't a self-funded, old-money multi-millionaire. A system that rewards cronyism, nepotism and punishes anyone who dares deviate from the narrow far-right/centre-right pathway. A system that basically discourages voting, especially in recent years with all the Florida/Ohio voting machine shenanigans (seriously America, use paper and pencils - they're cheap unhackable...but of course, that's why they're not used), but more generally by making the result of a Presidential election largely unconsequential to normal people. The last two certainly had serious consequences, but only because that clueless daddy's boy got elected and re-elected. Bah, I'm tired. Carry on, Kiwi cousin.

*sigh* this crap again :rolleyes: And I mean all of this crap: the n00bish failure to search (it's a car game, it's five years old, tuning may have come up once or twice already), the uber-n00bish ignorance of the auto-search (which was implemented to prevent exactly this kind of crap and because noone uses the ****ing manual search), the usual ignorance of the Suggested Improvements sticky, the usual tear-the-n00b-a-new-anus (which I agree with) & the usual arguments that follow. Here's my list of suggestions:

1) newbs, use the search. If not, at least use your goddam brain. It's highly likely that what you think is an awesome idea ("make it like t3h NFS zomfg") has been suggested before. It's not like 'tuning' was invented yesterday and you're the first guy to notice.

2) regulars, I know from experience it's sometimes fun to rip someone a new orifice. I could say something here about being nice to noobs who get it wrong, but I won't There are so many ways to avoid re-suggesting things (think, search, read being three, then there's the auto-search which, as the name suggests, does it for you!) that there's really no excuse.

If you manage to avoid thinking, searching & reading (& ignoring the auto-search) when considering a new post then I believe you fully deserve to have a new anus installed by an experienced renovator like Ian H. Sure, he's blunt and tactless. Um. That's it. But I'm sure some of us are grateful to have blunt, tactless people on the forum because our own social graces prevent us from being so deucedly improvident and having someone around to say what you think (but wouldn't actually say) is quite useful

OP: welcome to LFS

Last edited by Hankstar, Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:47.

Arr, Primus! Damn, did I love that band. That clip brings back some memories. Cloudy, hazy memories They had some cool vids - the one for Mr Krinkle (from Pork Soda) is my fave - but in concert is where they really kicked insane amounts of giant mutant arse.

Grab yourself a can o' pork sodaaaaa, you'll be feeling jus' fine.
Aint nothin quite like sitting 'round the house, sippin on those cans ' swine.

Quote from dustydrawers :

[Muse's 'Knights of Cydonia'] is also the only song in Guitar Hero 3 that I've obsessed over, destined to get 100% for all difficultys on it.

So far, I've only gotten 100% on easy, and 96 on Medium

Digger, please. Get serious and practice it on a real guitar Actually, I reckon it'd be easier to learn it on a real guitar than on that cute wee control pad guitar-shaped thing GH3 gives you ...

Last edited by Hankstar, Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:56.

Quote from Inouva :

Gay emo

Redneck homophobe

Muse's Knights of Cydonia. Bitchin' video

Even with Tony's abysmal record, he's still better liked than bloody Thatcher. Which is saying something. Tony's also better liked than George - but that's very easy, even for him. I guess, if you wanted an excuse, you could say Tony was "just following orders", just like our ex-PM Mr Howard.

George will get soundly caned by history. He's already more hated than Nixon (and has done a lot more impeachment-worthy things than Tricky Dick) but just wait until afterwards, when all the shady dealings of Dubya & his cronies, currently semi-ignored by mainstream media, become public.

But you're right, it won't come anywhere near justice for either of them. For example: Ronnie Reagan, who (along with Cheney & Rumsfeld) courted & supported Saddam Hussein, basically created Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets and whose administration was actually convicted by the World Court for crimes in Nicaragua which cost many hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, was treated in death like a war hero. Hopefully the charity towards George II won't extend that far. Reagan's crimes went mostly unnoticed (great pains were taken to keep them under wraps) but George's reign and its excesses have been blatant in the extreme. The media may have been asleep at the wheel since 2000 but, as often happens after the fact, they'll wake up and see what they've been missing (or just ignoring).

But a few disparaging words (or entire chapters - or entire books) about Tony's and George's crimes will be little comfort to the families of a million dead Iraqis (to name just one country whose death toll has risen sharply, artificially & without anything approaching a good reason since October 2001).

I certainly don't think Blair will have any real power as EU president. What he will get, however, is an air of legitimacy that he thoroughly doesn't deserve. Installing him as EU chief will be like a validation or vindication of all his international crimes or, perhaps worse, will seem as if the EU is simply looking the other way. Considering the outspoken opposition to the Iraq occupation that came from Europe (especially big players like Germany & France, two countries who know better than most the costs of major military defeat, unlike Britain or America) I would be very disappointed if Phony Tony got anywhere near the EU leadership.

Albieg, a trial at the Le Hague would be a perfect result for both Tony & George but like you, I don't see it happening. Justice only happens to the "bad guys".

Quote from Madman_CZ :

Yes, i hope he doesn't get it. He is the least person who deserves it. He should just **** OFF.

Corrected :up:

I can't wait to see which branch of the Corporate America Party wins election 2008: the regular right-wing uber-nationalist nutjobs or the extreme right-wing uber-nationalist nutjobs! I wonder which would make Thomas Jefferson spin in his grave faster?

Ok DWB?

Don't worry about boring the shit out of the reader Mazz, that's why I'm here

Quote from James :

Once again, going back to original texts, you’ll find that Hell is regarded as a chosen destiny, just as Heaven is. Would you expect a just God to overlook sin? Would you expect the police to overlook stealing just because jail didn’t seem ‘fair’ to you? It’s like in any country here on Earth – if you break that country’s laws, you can expect the consequences of breaking them.

Referring a non-believer to scripture is as effective as shooting blanks. I'm not convinced one bit of the Bible's authenticity as the word of the creator of the universe (whose existence, as described in the Bible, I am equally unconvinced of), so using it as an authoritative source is a waste of your & my time. Similarly, concepts such as "heaven", "hell" (which is an abhorrent thing to teach, let alone to children), "sin" and "God's law" are redundant & equally useless as arguing points. You'd have a better chance getting a United supporter to go for City.

Now, I concede your point about Pharaoh leading his soldiers to battle (and therefore not being able to notice their disappearance in the Red Sea, very well done), but you've missed the entire point - and the fact that Pharaoh would've been drowned as well only strengthens it! If the entire Egyptian army disappeared while chasing a million Hebrews that would be one thing, but if the god-king of Egypt also perished I think that the entire nation of Egypt might notice and might think it was an unthinkable catastrophe. I know Egyptians were selective in their reportage & archiving (for example the name of Akhenaten, the radical pharaoh who changed the official religion, moved the capital city and made many other unpopular changes, was removed from many, but obviously not all, official documents & records after his death) but I think the loss of the nation's entire defence force and their semi-divine god-king would have been cause for great lamentation, fear & possibly even massive social upheaval. A defenceless, leaderless nation in the ancient world (and even now) would have been a prime target for invasion by any number of opportunisitc neighbours, many of whom may already have had grievances with powerful & wealthy Egypt. The labour vacuum left by the(supposed) millions of absent Hebrew slaves would not have gone unnoticed either.

Quite simply, the loss of Egypt's entire army, king & a significant portion of its labour force would have been devastating to Egypt socially, economically & would have left the country completely unprotected. Even if not recorded by Egyptians, these events would have definitely been recorded by Egypt's neighbours or by foreigners who may have been in Egypt at the time. The fact that the only place these events occur is in a book already rife with outright fiction can really only lead a logical person to one conclusion: they either didn't happen at all, ever, or the actual events that inspired the story were so mind-numbingly dull & unimportant that the authors felt compelled to embellish their account. A lot.

Now, that's just one point to think on (many others to address but very limited time, unfortunately - and your answers to it thus far have been less than compelling tbh). This whole Egypt issue might seem trifling, but we're talking about one of the foundation stories of the Jewish (and therefore, by extension, Christian & Muslim) religion. If that one point is based on a fallacy, the whole thing's already on shaky ground. Before and after this story are miracles, magic, contradictions (even from the mouth of the Man himself, see here for a full & exhaustive list) and various other absurdities, so I think any rational person could see why any other rational person would have strong doubts about its veracity. If something can't be demonstrated to be true or, at the very least, partly accurate, most rational people are going to have great difficulty abiding by it and basing their lives on it.

Mazz, I do accept the point that religion and religiously-inspired groups can be a force for good in the world - what I will not accept, however, is the all-too-common religious assertion that only religious belief can inspire people to be moral, charitable and decent to each other. I'm moral and honest and I care about people because it's right to do so, not because I hope it'll get me into heaven, and I strongly resent anyone assuming that such a thing is impossible without divine inspiration.

As for Flip's comment: that's a major factor in my scepticism (& cynicism): the fact that the creator & controller of the universe would be so offended by my refusal to bow to him that he'd condemn me forever paints him as quite a petty & small personality. I think if I'd created a universe (or the universe) I'm not sure I would care that much whether a tiny life-form on a small planet worshipped me. Why create a limitless universe and then let it stew for 13 billion years before caring if anything that happened to evolve in that time knew who you were?

Last edited by Hankstar, Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:27.

Mazz, nice one for having a go, but experience in allowing myself to be drawn into such things tells me that none of this has any effect, except to sharpen one's own arguing skills and improve one's typing speed. You're not going to de-convert a true believer, especially a self-described fundamentalist, and you're certainly not going to gain any ground pointing out fabrications, contradictions and holes in the story (even though Biblical gaps far outweigh any of the gaps in scientific theory that are continually pointed out by the faithful as proof that science is wrong - sweet Jeebers, the blinding irony!).

James and Shotty, much as I'd like to continue this here (because you both raised interesting points which require responses) I promised I wouldn't (see above)

As one example, just think about those Egyptians for a minute, James: if the entire Egyptian army was indeed drowned (which means you must accept (a) God indeed "chose" the Hebrews (b) he loathed Egyptians (c) the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea), surely you'd think Pharaoh would wonder where the hell his army, presumably many thousands of people, went? He would have been exposed to all his enemies, both in and out of Egypt, who would have been very grateful to hear he was undefended. I simply fail to see how a vanishing army and an exodus - covert or not - of millions of people failed to attract any attention from anybody who thought it was newsworthy enough to write down, either in Egypt or any of its neighbours. The fact that the only account comes from the "victors" is no solution - I've already registered my distrust of circular logic. "My book says it happened and my book says my book is true, so it must have happened, therefore ..." does not fly. Anyway, since you've confessed to being a fundamentalist I think I'll leave it there and go do some work.

Of course I respect anyone's right to believe anything, but I reserve the right to question & criticise anything which asks me to drop all standards of objectivity and take something on faith. "Because I said so" didn't work when I was a kid, sure as hell won't work now.

Never fear Jeff, I swear that's my last essay on this topic (in this thread)

A historical event is something that can be verified by looking at multiple sources. The Bible doesn't qualify. Its original manuscripts may be dated accurately of course, but noone's denying the existence of the Bible or debating its exact age (it was written at least a generation after Jesus' execution, by most estimates), just its accuracy as a historical document.

The problem is this: the Bible is the only source for the events it describes and those events aren't mentioned in any other sources from the era (for example, you'd think a local despot having every first-born child executed would have rated a mention from a Roman historian. It doesn't). Going back to an Old Testament example, you'd think the escape of millions of Hebrew slaves from the clutches of the evil Pharaoh would have been worth a mention on a papyrus somewhere too. You'd think news of that magnitude would spread like wildfire to neighbouring nations and kingdoms and be recorded there too. Again, it didn't.

The other problem (for me anyway) is the circular logic that says "the Bible is true and I know this because the Bible itself is true, and you have to trust the Bible because it's the true word of God." I'm afraid that isn't very convincing.

FTR I have read the Bible many times, as I was raised Christian. Not by my parents though - my primary school & high school had religious instruction classes, I went to Sunday School until I was about 6 (my mother removed my brothers and I in objection to us being taught spook stories about Satan & Hell) and I had sort of religious awakening at 14 (which lasted about a year iirc). I'm not coming at Christianity from some uneducated, prejudiced point of view. "Know thine enemy", as some wise man once said I'm aware of the beautiful prose in the Bible and the admirable moral sentiments expressed; I'm equally aware of the brutality, the contradictions between different books and even within some books, the outdated social practices and I could go on. I'm also aware of many, many people who say "you don't take it all literally, some it is just an illustration, a parable". So who decides what you take literally and what you take as a fable? There's no instruction manual - it seems to be entirely up to the individual which parts of the Bible to obey and which to discard as outdated desert custom or non-literal story-telling. Most Christians I know (apart from the fundamentalists) take the moral lessons of peace & tolerance & forgiveness & charity (which you can find in any religious or secular philosophy anyway) and leave behind almost everything else. Hell, they're barely even Christian if you look at the percentage of Bible rules they stick to