Nickenstein79

Hmmm, after staring at Google maps for a bit, the best I've managed to come up with is: Hillary Rodham Clinton is chillingly robbed in Swinton.

Yes! Tooks is indeed (and has been for *ahem* ... some time) utterly correct! Gustav Klimt's hair is crimped!

Yes, I do have a basic lore and story in my head. But please submit your ideas for me to see. Your story/lore ideas could be much better than mine, so I certainly do want to hear them. (And thanks for being interested, dude.) Cheers!

A quick update. I've done a test video by cludging together my infinite landscape code and my wobbly jelly shader code. The FPS of the video is horrible because of fraps (the game runs @60 fps solid even on a dogshit laptop. I need access to a machine with nvidea-shadowplay to record it properly.) Also the cam is moving too fast for you to see that the entire landscape is wobbly. (You can see it briefly as the text fades out before I start moving the camera.) EDIT: When I say 'Jelly' I mean the substance that Americanadians wrongly call 'Jello'. (And when Americanadians say 'Jelly' they actually mean 'Jam'/'preserve'/'conserve') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBTk9H41xM&feature=youtu.be ALSO: Here is a bonus pic of the snowy shader I'm working on (This isn't throw-away-experiment code like in the video above. This is something that is definitely intended for the game)

Soon, Romain. Soooon...

UPDATE: I've been struggling for some time with the very tricksy problem of making my robots 'cope' properly with a limitless 3D world distributed across multiple players. I have extra constraints to contend with as my game has a full real-world type physics simulation running. But I've got it nailed now (YAY!). And to celebrate that milestone, I wrote a spiffy new mighty morphin' power-shader for the 'blueprints' that you want your robots to construct. It looks like wobbly transparent ghost-jelly in the sky! PS: It looks so damn good in motion that I'm cutting a video right now!

That certainly does happen. As happens with every contentious issue (politics/religion/class/race/sex). Religious people have their beliefs/opinions contested in the same way everyone else does on the internet. Look at any random cat video on YouTube, you'll find a hundred comments saying "Dogs are better!". (Dogs totally are better, btw.) Errrrm... Merry Easter, folks! ;D

As an atheist, I'm always infuriated when people tell me I'm part of a 'group'. I know atheists who are racist/selfish/sexist/dishonest/horrible. I know atheists who are Lovely/generous/honest/giving. & I know theists who are racist/selfish/sexist/dishonest/horrible. I know theists who are Lovely/generous/honest/giving. There is no "old atheist line". There is no atheist dogma. There are no atheist tenants to follow. The discrete commonality between atheists, is their lack of a belief in gods. There is currently a movement who call themselves 'Atheism+', who are attempting to gain a 'popularity platform' by aligning their own personal (sociopolitical) grievances with their atheism, as if the two things where a single issue. These people make me sick to my stomach, tbh. Self serving idiots. (I'm not a fan of people conflating separate issues. Read my previous posts above on the subject of relativity for evidence of that.) Being an atheist is not a direct modal equivalent of being in a club/tribe/religion (no matter how many times I'm told otherwise). In exactly the same way that 'not collecting stamps' isn't a hobby.

That's my main gripe here. In the olden days (with BBC-Open-Universty), the BBC stuck to their remit of public education based on it being publicly funded. BBC-1 had popular-entertainment and news, BBC-2 had niche entertainment and education (so you had OU-physics lecture/SkyAtNight at various rare times. Now that is all gone.) The best things in that same style are now only found on YouTube (not on mainstream TV like they used to be, AND SHOULD STILL BE!). My two favourites are: 1: (already mentioned by CaptainBinky) Lawrence Krauss - A universe from nothing lecture. 2: Leonard Susskind: an entire set of lectures on theoretical physics given at Stanford university (this is a full set, this constitutes all of the info given to students studying theoretical physics at Stanford, from a world renowned physicist! Drink it in! Suck up this very expensive education for free! All of the parent's of the students in that class here payed a fucking fortune for this tutelage! HAVE IT! Also, if you know matrix maths before watching, this is all surprisingly easy to absorb!) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8

Agreed. They are both super awesome. However, what we actually need is much more TV-time dedicated to actual science, not celebrities. Like it used to be in the 80's, with scientists actually explaining things properly, rather than half-explanations followed by wizzy graphics. That kind of TV could have stopped you yourself from conflating special relativity with general relativity and mass-energy-equivalence, as you have done in your comments above. The trend these days seems to be "Actual science is hard, so let's focus on graphics and hopefully sneek a few half-facts into the viewer's brain whilst they look at the colours!" This is why the recordings of university lectures given by Krauss/Kaku/Tyson should be played on prime-time-TV. Not the the dumbed-down shows made-for-TV, but the *actual* university lectures. I _really_ miss the old BBC-Open-University shows. :'(

I saw a documentary about a bloke who had one of those. He had a strange hair-grip over his eyes.

He didn't like the cosmological constant in his 'general' theory of relativity (a theory mostly concerned with gravitation). It felt like a fudge in the maths to him. It has since been shown that the anti-gravitational effects of dark energy account for this constant. So he was not wrong, he just didn't know about the existence of dark energy. (That is to say, he didn't know why he was correct.) However, we are actually talking 'special' relativity here. All modern communications would collapse if it were wrong. For one, GPS is completely reliant on the time dilation effects predicted by special relativity. EDIT: What we are really talking about here is mass-energy-equivalence (e=mc2), which is intertwined in both general and special relativity, and is very heavily backed up and confirmed by pretty much everything in known physics.

No, no, no. Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. To accelerate an object with _any_ mass to the speed of light requires infinite energy. Another way to look at it: An object's mass ('m') approaches infinite as it's speed (energy 'e') approaches the speed of light ('c'). E=mc2 -> m = e/c²

@Tyler: - Some very cool stuff there! My fave by far is "Better Than Me". It has a very 'Lemmings' type feel to it. I love it. It's quite hard working out which sorts of music will work best with the game at this stage, as I am very much in a 'tinkering' stage with the gameplay.

Halfway through listening and the building's f***ing fire alarm has gone off!!! Grrrr! :/