This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - merthsoft
16
« on: May 22, 2013, 02:42:48 pm »
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). This is just incredibly factually inaccurate. The evidence for evolution is actually overwhelming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesishttp://humanorigins.si.edu/evidencehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htmlThe theory is certainly changing as time goes on, but the evidence keeps piling up. At this point not 'believing' in evolution is about as defensible of a position as not 'believing' in gravity. And a belief and evolution and a Christian God are certainly not mutually exclusive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolutionThe Catholics certainly don't have any problems with it, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_ChurchIt seems, at the very least, that a discussion about evolution is mostly out of place in a discussion on religion. Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator. You should read about Deism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeismYou can most certainly have a deity that isn't the Christian God (hell, look at every other theistic religion). Event if there being a god means that is was to be omnipotent, all-merciful, and all-good, that still doesn't mean it has to be the Christian god--it could be another god that fits those qualities, and maybe no religion has even yet described it.
17
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:05:48 pm »
I think automatically changing the variable names is dangerous--it's super helpful to do that, but sometimes I just want to change the name one time, and not the rest. There should be a way to refactor it, but doing it automatically could lead to frustration.
18
« on: May 06, 2013, 03:39:55 pm »
Is this sped up? That seems very fast, and I'd love to see the code if it's not--I've not been able to get graphics drawing to be quite that speedy.
19
« on: April 12, 2013, 10:11:10 pm »
Pink's my favorite color.
20
« on: April 12, 2013, 06:07:47 pm »
Here's an older picture of my collection:  Pictured: I have: TI-81 TI-82 TI-83+SE w/ Viewport TI-84+ TI-84+SE x2 TI-85 TI-nspire Casio Prizm Black Link Silver Link Also featured are part of my gcn bridge and the spectrum analyzer made by Michael Vincent. I've since had two additions: 
21
« on: April 08, 2013, 04:41:06 pm »
This is pretty neat. It's similar to what elfprince is doing, it seems. I've thought about just having a simple executable that doesn't require the editor and everything (it would be fairly simple), but no one expressed interest in it so I haven't done it--yours is probably better for that anyway since it's in C and therefore requires fewer dependencies. One suggestion I would have it to make it so it can take TokenIDE-style XML files and use those for tokenization/detokenization. I see that you've mentioned that, but your solution of "anyone can just poke me with a new set to add to the source (or do it themselves) and compile it in" isn't really idea. Why make users recompile when they can just drop in an XML file? It also has the added bonus of making it so if someone makes a new token set for TokenIDE, it'll automatically work with yours and vice-versa. Standardization is, I think, a good thing. There are, indeed, some new tokens for the 84+CSE, but I'm not the most knowledgeable about them - ask Kerm, BrandonW, Benjamin Moody or several others 
Or Merth  . The latest release of TokenIDE has the 84+CSE XML file with all the new/renamed tokens: http://merthsoft.com/Tokens.zip(Hopefully you don't think I'm trying to advertise, that's just where the xml file is, and you can use that for the new tokens.)
22
« on: March 05, 2013, 09:32:39 pm »
Okay, I've updated it: - tifreak and me worked on creating a more accurate 82 xml file. - Sprite editor bug as been fixed - Tokens.xml is the default token file - Fixed problem with saving adding new lines. As always, download: http://merthsoft.com/Tokens.zip
23
« on: March 04, 2013, 09:11:55 am »
DJ_O: Prizm support is already started--I have most of the tokens, I just need write the code to read/write the files.
CompSystems: 89 support is planned. Looking at the code from that, I should be able to create an appropriate XML file from it (it uses a giant switch statement... ugh). I can't give a good timeline for that, though. Come to think of it, though, that's probably my #1 most requested feature.
24
« on: March 03, 2013, 08:45:56 pm »
It runs under Mono.
25
« on: March 03, 2013, 01:02:26 pm »
You seem to know about all the differences--would you be willing to make the tokens files for those calcs? Or at least list all the differences. Are those the only different tokens?
26
« on: March 03, 2013, 12:52:07 am »
It is fairly simple, though it might be easier at times to, like, copy and paste. But from one format you can compile into any other, and you can select which tokens file to load up. It won't make porting an automatic process (especially with the 73, which has a weirdo token set), but it should be easier
27
« on: March 02, 2013, 08:55:52 pm »
Okay, preliminary 73, 82, and 83 calc support has been added. I've also cleaned up the download to just have a single .exe file. So, download it and you can delete all your dlls. Me and tifreak are working on the new xml files, but for all but the 73, the others are basically the same. I'll update when we've got more xml files. http://merthsoft.com/Tokens.zip
28
« on: February 25, 2013, 12:37:16 pm »
Is there some reason why you're asking this question?
To see if people care. There isn't a catch at all, and making it one file does make things easier for, well, everyone. I guess I just wanted to see if there was anyone who was really fond of all the dlls sitting around. It'll make the .exe slightly larger, but that's really it.
29
« on: February 25, 2013, 12:32:44 pm »
That would take a lot of work, and isn't really the direction I'm taking the product. Have you tired installing Mono on your computer that has issues with .NET? They have a Windows build.
30
« on: February 25, 2013, 11:32:20 am »
I have a question for users:
Would you prefer if instead of one .exe and six .dlls in the download folder, it's just the one .exe? This would clean up the output directory, but that's really the only thing it will change--everything else will still work the same.
|
Show Posts