How do you prove that something is not random?

Given that something is unpredictable, you can neither prove nor disprove that it is truly random.

Oh, an exception: artificial chaotic systems (such as a this) are unpredictable, but definitely not random. But those are systems where we created the rules. When it comes to natural systems, where we don't know the rules, all we have to go on is the assumption that all effects have causes. This assumption is true for macroscopic observable events, so it sounds good. We're still not totally sure on the microscopic level, but we haven't really been able to disprove the assumption yet.

EDIT: It is definitely possible to construct systems that are unpredictable, given our current technology. These are "good enough" to be used as "random number generators", which is a slight misnomer since the purpose of RNGs is to create unpredictable numbers with a particular probability distribution. RNGs do not actually need to be truly random, since we usually don't care about whether or not their effects have causes.

I think that is a fantastic explanation of what's going on here.

Curiousity: How hard/easy is it to develop for AIR?

Not much harder than developing normal Flex programs. Read the documentation and API, and be comfortable using the command line compiler and creating XML config files and MXML GUIs. All of the standard Flash classes, Flex classes, and additional AIR classes for window management and stuff are available in AIR.

Does it create standalones,

Yes.

needs some kind of virtual machine to be installed,

Yes. But Adobe is pretty good at automating this part. The first time you try to download an AIR program it will download the thing your computer needs to run AIR.

does it have some damn vsync

No.

huge post

i think i see what you mean, but i do not really know how to communicate informally, so this is all i can do; it's either this or not post, and not posting is boring (to me at least)

Okay, but then why post so much in a community that intended for indie game developers, rather than in a community for, you know, talking about stuff. Like a philosophy forum or facebook or something.

I am easily bored by information that does not help me make progress on whatever I want to be doing, and most of the information in this thread does not help me develop games. This thread is definitely not why I come to TIGForums, and I'm glad there are not more threads like this drowning out the interesting ones.

hm? where did i say that anyone is wrong?

And here's another example of interpreting an informal comment formally.  I meant that you were not acknowledging the validity of informal statements simply because they don't work through the lens of formal language. Like these:

let's all get our ad-homin-on!

an ad hominem is where you insult someone in an attempt to win an argument -- considering that there's no argument here, and i am taking no position, they're just insults, not an ad hominemi or however you pluralize it (i got a D in latin, i don't remember)

edit: maybe ad hominii

Valter probably doesn't care that "ad hominem" technically only applies to the context of an argument. I certainly don't, and I like to use words outside of their original context. A decent informal interpretation of Valter's comment should get the intended, valid message across, and that's good enough.

I can't tell whether Paul is engaging in incisive self-satire or not. It seems like a long time to carry on a joke.

i don't believe i have a self to satirize -- i'm satirizing what other people perceive as myself

Whether or not you have a self to satirize, according to your definition of self, is completely irrelevant to Kobel's intended message. Again, the message should be clear.

i generally despise pedantry. complicating things using pedantry is easy, complicating things in other ways is more interesting

I'm not going to quote the definition of pedantry because I'm making a point of being informal  but I'm pretty sure most people here would say it's close enough to describe what you're doing, and it's what's bothering people.

Paul, you are using formal language in a context where everyone else is using informal language. Naturally, there are incompatibilities. But when you spot these incompatibilities, you say that the others are wrong, when in fact it is you who is using the wrong language and not making an effort to interpret language as it was intended.

But, see, people are not terribly receptive to learning when they're angry. If you make an interesting argument but anger everyone in the process, no one will learn from it. And derailing threads makes people angry.

You have to be way more subtle.

I thought of it as a good thing for independent and XNA developers because Community does have an amateur ring to it. 

And "indie" doesn't?

Raster graphics is inherently computationally easy. It would be a shame if Flash *couldn't* do that. But Flash also gives you the option to do much more complicated stuff, and I applaud that.

Basically, if you want to use pixel art, use the raster method.

If you want to use non-pixel art, but you don't want to think too hard about optimization, use the display list.

If you want to use non-pixel art, but you care a lot about optimization, study both methods, learn how they work and why they're useful, and use a hybrid approach that is a good fit for your application. I like to create vector graphics, and then render them to a bitmap once, and then parade that bitmap around my display list as a sprite instead of the original vector graphics.

What he's saying is that you have the option to render vector graphics into flixel's internal screen buffer, which then gets displayed on the screen as a simple bitmap without any other fancy display objects.

The flixel framework, on the other hand, uses more conventional display list techniques.

No it doesn't, unless I'm confused. It does the same thing as Chup. It draws the sprites into an internal buffer in the FlxSprite.render() function.

Given that he already did, here, this thread should be locked or deleted.

Not entirely thought out:

I have long dreamed of making a multiplayer cooperative game where the gameplay style is totally different for each of the playable characters. To give a lame example, borrowing the voice with an internet connection trope, one player might be a spy (male?) and the other player is the voice with the internet (female?).

I would suggest diversifying the possible roles beyond just gender, and to not actually discourage people from playing as the "wrong" gender by alienating them with exaggerated character stereotypes. Let them choose what type of gameplay they want, and if it happens to match the stereotype then so be it, but don't be patronizing.

hi folks. modest proposal here. can i get a 1 month extension cause Education Is Importent

On the one hand, no, that's not what the agreement was. On the other hand, you present a compelling argument.

How about another compromise. Something like: you get a one month extension, but we get to mock your masculinity in some way, like a permanent manbaby avatar or something. 

i don't really think he has a case. strength of trademark is crucial.

The problem is that Edge Magazine is relatively strong, and for whatever reason they ended up licensing Langdell's trademark rather than fighting it. (or am I mislead on that point?) We might not understand or agree with that decision, but it's already done so now Langdell's trademark is non-trivial, because it is the same as the Edge Magazine trademark. I think Langdell might have a case here, technically.

Which doesn't excuse his behavior, but the trademark thing alone probably won't be his downfall.

I actually really like the way LiveJournal handles threads.

Hate is a positive feedback mechanism, in the mathematical sense of the word. It makes a bad situation worse.

If everything we've found out about Tim Langdell is true, then he absolutely should be stripped of his authority, and perhaps publicly humiliated to discourage people from acting the way he did. But there's a big difference between that, and making his life miserable just because you can. We need to demonstrate that we have more maturity than Tim Langdell.

I'm not in this to save the IGDA, it's mostly about making Langdell's life miserable.

Because two wrongs make a right. 

I hardly played it worth the price tag

I've played Left 4 Dead well worth its price tag.