MarcusOfLycia's forum posts

#1 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -
@KaosAngel:  In the case I have a local copy, I'm fine with it, and actually really like it as a back-up mechanism. I just don't like having to rely exclusively on it. Its one reason I never got into MMO's. All my work dies the moment the company shuts down the servers, and the longer I wait to get a game, the less time I can play it.
#2 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

Only if I can keep my local saves. What would happen, say, if I purchased a game years after it came out and near the end of its company's support, and so suddenly couldn't save my game anymore? I'd probably just stop playing console games, to be honest.

#3 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

Gameplay. See EU3, which has claimed more hours of my life than I'm willing to admit numerically.

#4 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

There is a hard limit on FAT32. Logically, the file system simply doesn't allow files larger than 3.9 GB. My assumption is that its addressing mechanism simply doesn't allow for more data to be stored as a single logically contiguous element.

#5 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -
@DevWil said:

" @MarcusOfLycia said:

" Reading the post, I'm left with two responses:  1. The girl who was killed was the bigger tragedy  2. Your philosophical positions on things might be the most popular stances, but they're really shallow "

i hope i didn't give the impression that i didn't mean the shooting as a whole as "the tragedy" and i don't really see how my philosophical positions are popular. the shallow part is up for debate, but i don't understand where you're coming from in general. "
 Your line of thinking that the goal of humanity should be the furthering of the happiness of other people. Its a shallow basis for a worldview, but seems to be pretty popular. What happens in the event that the happiness of two people are tied to diametrically opposing outcomes of events? What happens if the happiness of someone in the short term brings ruin in the long term? I sense it as shallow because of the illustration you used of homosexuality where you claimed it was an issue that only effects homosexuals themselves and that people who oppose it are guilty of some mystical thing called "homophobia". That those guilty of it are 'discouraging love'. It is a bigger thing than that. Its always in the seemingly trivial things that the most important details lie. Pursing happiness as the fundamental aspect of a philosophy neglects to answer key problems like common good vs individual good, liberty vs control, the definition of happiness (why not just drug everyone if that makes everyone happy?), destructive behavior that leads to happiness, etc.
 
Appealing to some sort of arbitrary standard (human happiness) is simply not a good starting point for a worldview. Human happiness is temporal and insignificant in a universe where human happiness could even be considered the ultimate goal of existence. After all, at some point in such a universe, no more humans will exist and any effort humanity had in justifying and pursuing its happiness will have no effect on anything, let alone be remembered. 
Like I said, I just find it shallow. Perhaps you've thought through more of it than I'm gathering, which is entirely possible. Just based on what you said, since that's all I have to go on, those are my feelings.
#6 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

Reading the post, I'm left with two responses:
 
1. The girl who was killed was the bigger tragedy
 2. Your philosophical positions on things might be the most popular stances, but they're really shallow

#7 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

So wait. People (including me) enjoyed Majora's Mask because it was dark, fun, original, and deep, while other people didn't like it because they... didn't like it when it came out and have decided to ignore it. That doesn't really bother me, but it does seem like a silly, perhaps even really stupid thing to do. I'm trying to find arguments on this thread that indicate the actual reasons people don't like this game, and I'm not seeing them.

#8 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -

I don't care about Apple and I don't care about smart phones... so I don't really care much about Tested either.

#9 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -
@sharma55 said:
" @MarcusOfLycia said:
" @sharma55 said:
" @CaLe said:
" If there is no free will then is it right to punish murderers? "
If there is no free will and their predecided path is to kill people then they are a menace to society and have to be punished. "
But it wouldn't be their fault. Nothing would be anyone's fault. In a purely deterministic world there couldn't be any fault whatsoever since no one has any choice in anything they do. Things like responsibility and love and goodness would just be chemical reactions in the brain; it would be just as natural for the murderer to murder as it would be for a lover to love or a tree to fall down when cut. </Devil's Advocate> "
Right, can't disagree with anything there, which pretty much has me leaning to the conclusion that there can't be a purely deterministic world. I'm now starting to consider this whole thing like a flowchart, you have free will for moment to moment decisions but every one of those decisions sends you down a predetermined path to where you have to make another choice.  "
Right, I think that understanding makes a bit more sense than a more strict approach. My own view is similar I think (I like the flow-chart idea; good imagery). I think I lean towards the idea that we are pre-determined in many things and yet have the ability to choose our own responses, despite the circumstances beyond our control. If one thinks long and hard enough, they'll find a part of themselves beneath the cause-and-effect 'layer' that tends to be what others see; they'll see into the deepest part of their own self, and I think it's there that we really find free will in a tangible way.
#10 Posted by MarcusOfLycia (93 posts) -
@sharma55 said:
" @CaLe said:
" If there is no free will then is it right to punish murderers? "
If there is no free will and their predecided path is to kill people then they are a menace to society and have to be punished. "
But it wouldn't be their fault. Nothing would be anyone's fault. In a purely deterministic world there couldn't be any fault whatsoever since no one has any choice in anything they do. Things like responsibility and love and goodness would just be chemical reactions in the brain; it would be just as natural for the murderer to murder as it would be for a lover to love or a tree to fall down when cut. </Devil's Advocate>