Jump to content

Saint

Members
  • Posts

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saint

  1. Hey Kissamies I just realized where your avatar comes from - that's a Shofixti if I'm not mistaken.. sweet!
  2. Yeah that was my thread - got a pretty good response for awhile until it got too off track and one of the mods locked it
  3. A quick way to get 2 sabers is to choose Nar Shadaa as the first planet after Telos. You should have one part of the saber before you get there and on the planet you will encounter 3 people who will either give you one lightsaber part (if you don't have a saber yet) or a complete (and random apparently) saber (if you have already constructed the first one). A) A guy in slummy apartment thing off of the docks: His wife is stuck in the area controlled by the Exchange and he wants to get her back. Once you get in there and kill all the exchange guards and what not you tell her the coast is clear and she will go back to her husband. When you go visit them again he will give you the saber piece. B) At some point you will need to return to the Ebon Hawk to fight Visas, after defeating her you will take another saber part from her. (I usually do these two first, and then construct my saber). C) The Hutt gangster has a secret room that is guarded by kath hounds. You need to use someone sneaky (Visas works well) to overhear a couple of conversations, one in the slummy apartments and one in the cantina/lounge place. They will reveal that you can put the kath hounds to sleep with juma juice. Then you need to buy juma juice from the bartender. You also need to go through the dancing sequence for the hutt and put him to sleep. Whatever you do, DO NOT WAKE HIM up until you have snuck into the room. Once he is asleep, you slip the juma juice into the kath hounds' water dish and break into the room. Search the containers and you'll find a light saber (or part). BTW, once you have built your first light saber, any other point in the game where you would get a saber part will become a complete light saber instead.
  4. I think so. If a new game were aimed at the original XBox and released late 2006 (at the earliest), using the same old engine, the graphics would be substandard and the game wouldn't sell well. It wouldn't be a wise move on the part of the developer or LucasArts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you're all forgetting the fact that not everyone is going to rush out to buy the XBox 360 as soon as it launches. The sytem is going to be $400+ which is simply out of reach for a lot of people. To reach the biggest audience they would need to release it for both, but definately the XBox.
  5. Here is another point to consider: Intelligent does not necessarily infer the ability to make moral choices. Tolkien Orcs or the Nazgul for instance are a good example of this - they can think, they can even communicate with other people, but they were created by the Dark Lord for the purpose of being evil and they have no ability to make moral choices in the matter. Being a Christian, another example that springs to mid is the devil, or more broadly, demons in general. The devil is extremely intelligent, as are his demons. They are heavenly beings (angels who fell). I would argue that Satan is perhaps the most intelligent being in existance aside from God himself. But the devil and all of his cronies have no ability to come back the "light side" because they are now 100% wholly evil. A being who is 99% evil (Palpatine perhaps) has a chance to redeem itself. But a being who is 100% evil, no matter how intelligent or communicative they are, will never be able to come around. Terentaks were created by Exar Kun to be 100% evil, therefore they are intelligent and possibly communicative, but have no ability to choose good.
  6. I certainly wouldn't want to be the first human test subject to take that ride. You remember what happened to that baboon in 'The Fly' eh. Turned inside out and all. I think that if there ever is a teleportation device it would be impractical and raise too many safety concerns to use a "break down the atoms, reconstruct the atoms" approach. With all the variables that would be involved in properly coverting the mass to energy, energy to mass and reconstructing the person to EXACT specifications (taking into account the variableness of biology) I just don't know if I would trust a computer to do it all. With my luck it would all be powered by Microsoft and the teleporter would cause an illegal operation while putting me back together. I'd feel much safer with a teleporting device that would simply open a hole in space that would completely envelop me and then close. That way I would be able to travel instantaneously while staying in one peace. Also I would think it would be far less limited in its range as it wouldn't be dependant on the machine's ability to transmit energy over a long distance.
  7. This is something I have often struggled with in regards to teleportation technology. What is being experimented with currently is a system that perfectly copies (and in doing so, destroys) the original object and then perfectly re-creates (aka duplicates) the object on the other side. It is in fact very much like cloning in a way because the ORIGINAL object is not being transported at all, but is being broken down, recorded into a code and then the code is being transmitted to a receiving station which constructs a new object from that code. It may look, talk and think exactly like you, but for all intents and purposes your unique conciousness (call it a soul if you like, but it basically comes down to conciousness) would be dead and gone with that original body and theoretically a new conciousness would show up on the other side. I believe in Star Trek, the teleporter technology is similar but different in that the object (or person) is not destroyed and then duplicated but is actually converted into energy and that energy is then transmitted through the transporter beam. On the other side, the SAME energy is then converted back into the original matter and put back together. In that case the conciousness (presumably) would be intact because the energy has actually be transmitted rather than copied. Personally I think the only way for teleportation to actually be done without destroying the original object would be some kind of micro worm-hole technology that would not attempt to deconstruct the object at all, but simply create a "gateway" of sorts to another place in space-time that the person go through into the new area.
  8. I believe the blue Twi'Lek Jedi is Aayilah Secura.
  9. Darth Bandon. He may be a Sith, but what kind of stupid evil overlord wannabe just shows up in the control room of his own ship and starts blowing stuff up for no good reason. Like "See how evil I am master! I just killed a bunch of your men! Give me a kewpie doll!" The guy is flat out retarded.
  10. Fourth dimensional mathematics wsa an example of why your puny "my brain hurts" argument was invalid. And time is not THE fourth dimension, either. It is an additional dimension, traditionally ascribed to the fourth dimension, mainly because humans don't have need for a fourth spacial dimension in everyday conversation. Super String Theory curreny theorises in 11 dimensions, for example, none of which are chronological in nature. Using the pitiful biblical metaphor to further Paley's "Divine Watchmaker" or even Newton's clock-winding god theses only goes to re-inforce the blatantly obvious conclusion that you are speaking well out of your depth. Read some refreshing logic to help clarify that addled mind of yours. Your political persuasion is as dull and meaningless as your feeble attempts at religious sanctimony. You are quite, quite mistaken. I am not trying to disprove the existence of god. Belief in God is a factor of FAITH not PROOF. Not only is there no proof that God exists, but it is logically unnecessary to invent one to explain the universe. Your attitude has consequences. The consequences of interpreting ignorance as some sort of proof of the Hand of God is that -- owing to our frailities -- some humans will interpet knowledge as not only unnecessary but evil. Look at the schism in the interpretation of Christian doctrine between tradtional "conservatives" and those "progressive" souls who want women bishops, gay clergy and an end to hypocrisy between word and deed. I suppose you think Pope John Paul I died of natural causes, too ... Your arrogance is insufferable. Just because you have decided that you have found your God, doesn't mean you can evangelise around the world. Which is exactly what you're doing. What about the Jewish faith? Is there God the same as yours? And the Muslims' Allah? What about the billions of Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and Buddhist people ? Are you patronisingly equating all their faiths with yours, or are they all just plain wrong because they disagree with you? Do you even realise how deeply insulting that is? (As you are obviously a US citizen it is doubtful you have even heard of half of these religions.) You are on a Star Wars forum, and you are preaching about a Christian theology. Star Wars is a fantasy universe where The Force is the supreme ontological essence, and it in no way resembles your theocracy. And I am trying to conduct a discussion about the quiddity of The Force and I do not appreciate some misguided "child of God" trying to evangelise. You would be less out of place if you were discussing Shintoism or Buddhism. If you cannot contributre in a meaningful way then KEEP SILENT. If you must bleat about your religion, go and have a love-in on the Christian fora. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points in the name of avoiding a personal flame war that I have no interest in. I also do agree with you about the nature of faith versus proof, and you are quite correct - God does not require us to prove his existence, he requires us to believe in it. My reason for approaching the subject in this way is that intellect often gets in the way of faith, when the two in unison can aspire to much greater things than either on its own. However, if given the choice between intellect and faith, faith is the clear winner. A person can live without a soaring intellect, but without faith, what the heck is the point? I can also agree that this is not necessarily the ideal situation for having this sort of conversation, but as far as my right to "evangelise" - Hey, you apparently have the right to expound your belief that I am "out of my depth", or that my beliefs are "feeble". If you actually didn't believe in the right to evangelise freely, you wouldn't do it, but you do. And hey, even if I don't have the "right", consider one thing: Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that I know the truth, and that those who don't know and believe it are destined for something more terrible than human imagination is capable. Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that God has SO MUCH more blessing and fulfillment in store for those who just following his guidance. What kind of person would I have to be to keep that to myself?
  11. ... So where is the dilemma? God is both all-knowing and all-powerful, but he also follows certain rules that he built into human beings from the start. First of all, he allows us free will, which means that he didn't make a race of robots, because robots can never truly love their creator. God created children - people who would love him and follow his lead because they CHOOSE to, not because he forces them to. The true measure of "all-powerful" is in the ability to choose when to exert that power over others. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is what I was afraid of: spammed by a faith-over-fact fundamentalist. Breifly, the problem is Evil, namely, how can Evil exist in the world, even as a consequence of free will. (It's called the Epicurean Paradox, just look back and I've linked to a good description.) The paradox is that if we, as beings of free will, are free to choose ruin and not be "saved", then: - if God is all Good than everyone should be saved, or else s/he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing; if God is all-powerful, than these people could be saved, (redeemed), otherwise s/he ain't all-Good; - if God is all-knowing s/he knew that these people would be "lost", therefore s/he is not all-Good or all-powerful. There are various theodices that have been propounded by Christian thinkers over the years, but none will every untie that gordian knot. Gibberish. If God has a will, and God knows everything, and is more powerful, then God is (for whatever reason, and self-actualisation is as good a reason as any; Isaac Asimov did a great short story about it) using mortals for an agenda. God might be a benevolent dictator, but God is still an autocrat. And Goodness is derived from the choice made to suffer for a higher purpose, not some other agent (God) making the decision for us, whether it is the right decision or not. Period. No, it's quite simple and in no way difficult. Falling back on ignorance as the best reason for God's existence is sad. "We" don't have to accept anything. You may choose to, but my choice is not to. (That's a function of the liberalisation of faiths in Europe a couple of centuries ago: religious tolerance begets freedom to believe in none, or anything in between.) No, you cannot wrap yourself around that because you aren't trying hard enough. Ever done mathematics? Heard of the concept of infinity? Well, you can do arithmatic on sets of infinity (infinity - infinity = infinity, for example). There is a further abstraction: infinity to the infinite power is a whole new concept. (Notionally called Aleph-1, after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.) So, no, it doesn't hurt my brain. I've read books on the four dimension, and imagined a fourth dimensional hypercube (I can draw one for you, if you like: if looses a lot in two dimensions, though. ) Your attitude would have kept the Catholic Church in charge of medicine, like it was around 1000 years ago, when the monasteries were teaching what Galen (a citizen of the Roman Empire) had hypothesised but couldn't prove, because the Church wouldn't allow human dissection. "Yes, the human skull must have two bones for the mandible, because the monkey does." It makes me sick to hear people say "don't try to work it out, because that mystery is God." Grow up. You're enjoying the fruits of technology, yet you are squeemish about the morality of knowledge. You really believe in the Tree of Knowledge being a bad thing. It is not apporpriate. Stop polluting this thread with your God-bothering opinions. I don't want every advocate of every different religion telling me why there faith is the one true faith, so why should I let you? I know some poeple choose to believe -- that's why it's called FAITH. SCIENCE, on the other hand, is only interested in things that can be proved. Your ignorance of science does nothing to strengthen your case, so perhaps silence would assist you better. Now, back to something more interesting ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you're confused about what I was trying to say here about the mystery of God. Try as you might, you will never be able to explain God using any science or physical law that exists in our universe. All of that is part of creation, but God is outside of Creation. It isn't a matter of 4th dimension physics. The 4th dimension is time - God is not subject to time because God created Time - before there was any such thing as Time, there was God. This whole "godian knot" as you put it, only exists in the minds of those who want to believe that they are smart enough to logically define God, using laws of reason and logic that God himself created. The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up. God is not subject to the laws of human existance - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence. No matter how many principles of nature or reason or logic you try to use, none of it matters when you are dealing with the one who first thought up those laws. A very good verse in the Bible talks about the differences between the clay and the potter. The creator turns the clay into something - a vase or a pot or whatever. To use that pot as a metaphor for human existence - its existence, in fact the very fabric of its reality is defined by laws and principles that were decided upon and built into it by the potter. For the clay pot to then set out to disprove the existence of the potter, using the laws of its own existence would be absurd. The potter exists outside of that pot, and outside of all the laws the govern the pots existence. Understand that I am not trying to say that the laws of our own existence are invalid or that science is bad. Every law of nature or physics that mankind has used to advance himself was already there. Mankind didn't create physics, he merely discovered it and put it to use. That is exactly what God intended for us to do right from the very start, which is why he created the universe to work in such specific and consistant ways. And I'm no fundamentalist, nor am I republican neo-con puppet. I'll be the first to rally against the evil institution that is the Catholic church as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have condemned all the catholics. It isn't up to me, or anyone, to judge another human beings heart. That is Biblical. The fact that Christians do that is unfortunate and wrong, but those people are also flawed as we all are, which is why they make mistakes. No, I'm not anything like what you have described - what I am is a Christian and a child of God who seeks to bring the church (the Biblical definition of "church" is every believer, everywhere, not referring to a particular group or building) outside of the institution humans have turned it into and bring back what God originally came to do - establish a relationship. That's what it is all about. Again, sorry to preach, but there you have it!
  12. So where is the dilemma? God is both all-knowing and all-powerful, but he also follows certain rules that he built into human beings from the start. First of all, he allows us free will, which means that he didn't make a race of robots, because robots can never truly love their creator. God created children - people who would love him and follow his lead because they CHOOSE to, not because he forces them to. The true measure of "all-powerful" is in the ability to choose when to exert that power over others. God is also all-knowing, but that doesn't mean that he is the one who pre-destines everything. There is a difference between knowing what will happen and being the one who causes it to be so. The paradox here is that God CREATED linear existance, meaning that our existance, the way that our lives start at one point and continue in a straight line until the end, is not the way that God exists. He created that system but is not subject to it. The paradox is that God is able to both exist in the present with us, in every single moment, down to the most infinitely tiny detail, while also existing in a large sense, outside of time, outside of the universe. Hurting your brain yet? Well it should. God shouldn't be something that we can explain rationally or intellectually, because if we could, we would be on the same level as God, and considering human nature, that would be frightening indeed. I believe in God, and I worship him. I do my best to follow his lead in everything I do, not because I understand everything he does or can explain everything about his nature, but because I DON'T understand and I CAN'T explain it all. In order to have a relationship with our creator we must accept our role as his creation and accept that there are some questions we may never be able to answer. As the Bible says - God does not have a beginning or an end. Try as I might, I cannot wrap my mind around that, because I exist in linear time - my being cannot understand anything outside of that existance. So I have decided to allow God to keep some of his secrets. I'll find out some day. Sorry to preach - just seemed appropriate for the thread
  13. How can you even tell? The language just sounded like someone making squishing sounds or talking with a mouthful of mashed potatoes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This almost sounds like Leeloo's divine language in the 5th Element..
  14. Just to play devil's advocate here I think I should point out that the actual REAL LIFE application of the "moving" or "sweeping" wing design (i.e. F-14, F-111) also feature wings that sweep back while in flight (better aerodynamics it that case I guess) and then move out for better stability when in combat. Of course I guess aerodynamics don't matter in space so I'll go with the "looking nifty" theory.
  15. Human nature is wrong with being a Communist. A Flawless Utopian communist society is not possible because the people responsible for it are NOT flawless! Anyhoo.. this isn't actually a political debate thread. Come think of it this isn't a virginity debate thread either. Oh well!
  16. Its more of an educated guess, your word seem to radiate virginity " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> *blink* *blink* Uh okay whatever LOL. Just to put the subject to rest, I've been married for 2 years to a woman who likes to "relate" frequently and is rarely "unhappy" with my service. And as much as I would like to say that she was my first and only, unfortunately due to a lack of self-control on my part during my younger years it is sadly just not the case by any stretch of the imagination. Anyhoo.. you're a communist?
  17. I concur, where's Saint's sexually repressed hostility when we need it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sexually repressed??! Now there's a snap judgement with no basis whatsoever in reality. The part that really amuses me about Alaric is that he still hasn't read the first post. I mean the guy actually posted the prologue to a Star Wars novel in a post whose intentions he never knew! Also.. in response to: Uh.. what? Are you saying you're a pilot in real life and you therefore stick to SW novels that give a "realistic" spin to "flying"? You do realize that they're flying in space, right? Are you some kind of astronaut??
  18. Dang! Okay I'll quite derailing my thread now and go back to business as usual :\
  19. This will be number 100.. do I go up a level? Let's find out!
  20. Oh hey I just noticed I have 98 posts. With this post it'll be 99.
  21. I somehow have trouble imagining anyone cringing in fear at the thought of a Sith Lord named Dath Chunkinator.
  22. You're welcome Fionvar and that's a pretty cool name Catt.
  23. I also apologize for coming down so hard upon Rosbjerg.. I thought you were just being a jerk for jerkiness sake and that kind of .. angers me. Sorry for the flame war /apologize. And let me just add that You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
  24. I would like to clarify that I was not actually *ANGRY* about the people not reading the post.. I mean you're right that its not some kind of a life impacting thing. Just frustrating to start a thread and have people post random crap on it without first checking what the thread is about. We're all here to communicate in some fashion, right? In any kind of conversation, when someone joins a conversation in the middle and just starts randomly replying without knowing what the heck you're talking about, its frustrating. You might not kill the person, or yell at them about it.. but its still annoying. Its like this: Guy #1: So I saw the movie 'Saw' last night and my wife was totally grossed out about the reverse bear trap thing - I mean she was having nightmares about that for days! Guy #2: Yeah that and that thing at the end with the dead body getting up - I never saw THAT coming! Guy #3 enters and says: Oh yeah I totally love the part where the guy's wife comes back from the dead and kills him with the meat cleaver. Guy #1 & #2: WTH are you talking about? Guy #3: Pet Semetary - great movie or what??!
×
×
  • Create New...