1) The predicted high for the day: 6. The predicted low: -7.
2) You can see your breath at 6:30pm and don't expect to be home until 2am.
3) You have to wipe snow off the seat.
4) Your visor doesn't fog, it frosts.
5) You slip on ice while trying to put your bike on its kickstand.
That said, it was still better than walking.
10 most recent
Links
Thu, Apr. 5th, 2007, 02:28 am
Signs That You Shouldn't Be Riding Your Moped
Tue, Apr. 3rd, 2007, 04:55 am
His Name Was Jeff. He Was An Evangelical Christian. He Was A Nice Guy.
I just finished a book which drastically altered the way I think about things, forgiveness and mercy in particular. I'll get to the book later, but first I'd like to discuss a somewhat related topic: Our ability to focus on peoples' past when their present is quite different, particularly if that past was bad.
People change. Sometimes it's a quick change, sometimes it takes time. Either way, people tend to focus on the past instead of the present. I have a close friend who went from cig & pot smoking, heavy drinking, casual sex having, oft-times offensive guy to a clean living Christian in a matter of days. I assumed it was a phase, brought on, perhaps, by a bit of undigested beef, a blob of mustard or perhaps a crumb of cheese. But it stuck. It's now years later and he's still a clean-living Christian. He changed, and fairly radically, in an extremely short amount of time. There were months of build-up to it, of course, but the change itself was very quick, and permanent. People who knew him before the change and who met up with him again after were shocked. It seemed unbelievable, that he would change so drastically. That he could change so drastically. It still seems strange looking back on it. You can almost literally circle a day on the calendar and say, "This is when he changed." But still, there are people who sometimes express doubt that the change is truly permanent. I mean, how often have we seen someone try to change their life, stick with it for a while, only to backslide into their old way a short time later. Heck, we've all done it. So it's difficult for us to wrap our heads around the fact that sometimes the changes do happen and that they do last. My own faith seems to fluctuate wildly. Sometimes it seems like it's weather based. To quote Nelly Furtado's 'Well, Well': "Looks like I only love God when the sun shines my way; Looks like I'm into divinity only when I can see its sweet, sweet rays". Accepting that a change in a person is permanent is difficult, particularly when it's for the better. I mean, who wouldn't have difficulty trusting a criminal who says they're reformed? Why is it that we're likely to think of a housewife trying to do something good as a good person, while we'd view an ex-prostitute doing the same thing with suspicion? Take, for instance, writing a children's book. I know that I, personally, would applaud a housewife for writing one so she could afford to buy a house instead of renting an apartment, whereas if a prostitute wrote one (even if it were so that she could earn enough money to quit the oldest profession) I'd be dismissive of her as someone just out for the money. Yes, even though that's the exact reason I'd be applauding the housewife. Why is it that we view people's current actions and opinions only through the veil of what they've done before? Yes, it's often helpful to take things in their full and proper context, but sometimes what has gone before isn't context, it's obfuscation. Particularly if the past you're using for context is the very thing the person is trying to change from. It does no good to dismiss someone's opinions as untrustworthy because the person's an alcoholic if they haven't had a drink in years. Yes, they were alcoholics (technically probably still are), but they've made a deliberate change from what they were, so basing your opinion on the 'context' of what they were is useless, and in fact only obscures the reality of the situation.
And that, in a very roundabout way, brings me to the subject line of this post. "His name was Jeff. He was an Evangelical Christian. He was a nice guy." Those are three facts about a famous American, said about him in the half-year immediately preceding his murder. His name was Jeff. He was an Evangelical Christian, and in fact, left information pamphlets and Christian reading material around where he lived so that anyone walking by might pick them up. He talked about his faith with those around him, and when interviewed for magazines and television, would stress how thankful that Jesus had died for his sins. The security guards at his building thought he was a nice guy, and nobody who knew him disliked him. His murderer didn't kill him because of who he was or because he hated him. His murder was, as far as anyone can tell, completely random. He was baptized seven months before he was killed. The minister who performed the ceremony, after getting to know him afterwards, considered him a good man, a good Christian and a friend.
So who was Jeff? Jeff was Jeffrey Dahmer. He was a horrible, evil man who carried out some of the most disgusting and depraved acts in history. Murderer. Necrophiliac. Cannibal. He was all of that and more. Rapist. Torturer. Child molester. He did things that earned him the fifteen consecutive life sentences he was given. If anyone deserved the death penalty, it was Jeffrey Dahmer. The state he was convicted in didn't and doesn't have the death penalty though, so he was sent to jail until the day he died. It was less than three years between his sentencing and his murder. It was just shy of two years into his sentence when he was baptized. For seven months he received weekly visits from the minister who baptized him, and the two became friends. The minister believed that Jeffrey's faith was true and well founded. He believed that Jeff had changed from the man he had been.
It seems impossible to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian. It brings to mind the thought that if he can make it into Heaven, that God has no sense of justice. That if Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven, that you'd rather Heaven not exist at all. But that, you see, is missing the point entirely. If you think about it, as a believer, then the opposite is actually true.
If Jeffrey Dahmer isn't in Heaven, I hope it's because Heaven doesn't exist at all. If I don't meet him in Heaven, then I hope that death truly is the end and that there is no Heaven or Hell. Let it be reincarnation or oblivion, but if Jeffrey Dahmer isn't up in Heaven, singing hymns with the angels, then I don't want there to be a Heaven at all.
Assuming, of course, that his faith wasn't just a show. Assuming that his faith in God and Christ was real. I have no reason to doubt that his faith was false. This is, afterall, one of the only serial killers in history to show remorse during the trial. He did, in fact, admit that he deserved the death penalty and asked for no leniency in his sentence. He received no leniency in his sentence either. Had he lived for his entire sentence, he would have been released at the age of 969 years old*. So, running on the assumption that Jeff's faith was real, and that Christianity is true, then he will be in Heaven. When I get there, I will celebrate with Jeff that thanks to Christ's sacrifice all sins have been forgiven for those who believe in Him, from my sins that mostly harm only myself to Jeff's sins which cost seventeen people their lives and devastated an unknown number more.
To say that the blood of Christ cannot wash clean the sins of Jeff is to say that God's ability to forgive is finite. That, to me, is a far worse idea than the idea that Jeffrey Dahmer will make it into Heaven. Because then who is to say whether my sins, which are not particularly egregious although very numerable, will be within God's ability to forgive? My life and existence have been soaked in sin. My life is still bathed in sin, although I certainly try to resist the siren call of sin. Try as I might though, I have yet to achieve perfection, and I make mistakes, and I sin, and I am forced to humbly ask God's forgiveness. If I were to stop to pray every time I sinned, I doubt I would ever do anything but pray. But I believe, and have been taught, that God forgives all sins for those ask in faith for forgiveness. That He will provide us with help to resist sin in the future. That He knows our limitations and will judge us with understanding when the time comes. I believe that we are all imperfect, and that all imperfection is equally offensive to God, no matter how we delineate it here on Earth. A murderer is no worse to God than a liar. No worse to be an adulterer in deed than an adulterer in thought. When saving the adulteress, Jesus didn't say, "If any one of you is not an adulterer, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." No, he said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). All sins are equal when viewed through the lens of God's perfection, none are forgivable but through Christ, and all are forgivable through Christ. We may think that adultery is less bad than murder, or that bestiality is worse than theft, but in the eyes of God, all spell doom for those who do not ask forgiveness. But to those who ask? They shall live on in Heaven, singing the praises of He who can forgive all.
So I say this: Jeff, one day I hope to being singing His praises with you.
*Interesting side note: That's how old the oldest living man in the Bible is said to have been. "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died" (Gen. 5:27).
People change. Sometimes it's a quick change, sometimes it takes time. Either way, people tend to focus on the past instead of the present. I have a close friend who went from cig & pot smoking, heavy drinking, casual sex having, oft-times offensive guy to a clean living Christian in a matter of days. I assumed it was a phase, brought on, perhaps, by a bit of undigested beef, a blob of mustard or perhaps a crumb of cheese. But it stuck. It's now years later and he's still a clean-living Christian. He changed, and fairly radically, in an extremely short amount of time. There were months of build-up to it, of course, but the change itself was very quick, and permanent. People who knew him before the change and who met up with him again after were shocked. It seemed unbelievable, that he would change so drastically. That he could change so drastically. It still seems strange looking back on it. You can almost literally circle a day on the calendar and say, "This is when he changed." But still, there are people who sometimes express doubt that the change is truly permanent. I mean, how often have we seen someone try to change their life, stick with it for a while, only to backslide into their old way a short time later. Heck, we've all done it. So it's difficult for us to wrap our heads around the fact that sometimes the changes do happen and that they do last. My own faith seems to fluctuate wildly. Sometimes it seems like it's weather based. To quote Nelly Furtado's 'Well, Well': "Looks like I only love God when the sun shines my way; Looks like I'm into divinity only when I can see its sweet, sweet rays". Accepting that a change in a person is permanent is difficult, particularly when it's for the better. I mean, who wouldn't have difficulty trusting a criminal who says they're reformed? Why is it that we're likely to think of a housewife trying to do something good as a good person, while we'd view an ex-prostitute doing the same thing with suspicion? Take, for instance, writing a children's book. I know that I, personally, would applaud a housewife for writing one so she could afford to buy a house instead of renting an apartment, whereas if a prostitute wrote one (even if it were so that she could earn enough money to quit the oldest profession) I'd be dismissive of her as someone just out for the money. Yes, even though that's the exact reason I'd be applauding the housewife. Why is it that we view people's current actions and opinions only through the veil of what they've done before? Yes, it's often helpful to take things in their full and proper context, but sometimes what has gone before isn't context, it's obfuscation. Particularly if the past you're using for context is the very thing the person is trying to change from. It does no good to dismiss someone's opinions as untrustworthy because the person's an alcoholic if they haven't had a drink in years. Yes, they were alcoholics (technically probably still are), but they've made a deliberate change from what they were, so basing your opinion on the 'context' of what they were is useless, and in fact only obscures the reality of the situation.
And that, in a very roundabout way, brings me to the subject line of this post. "His name was Jeff. He was an Evangelical Christian. He was a nice guy." Those are three facts about a famous American, said about him in the half-year immediately preceding his murder. His name was Jeff. He was an Evangelical Christian, and in fact, left information pamphlets and Christian reading material around where he lived so that anyone walking by might pick them up. He talked about his faith with those around him, and when interviewed for magazines and television, would stress how thankful that Jesus had died for his sins. The security guards at his building thought he was a nice guy, and nobody who knew him disliked him. His murderer didn't kill him because of who he was or because he hated him. His murder was, as far as anyone can tell, completely random. He was baptized seven months before he was killed. The minister who performed the ceremony, after getting to know him afterwards, considered him a good man, a good Christian and a friend.
So who was Jeff? Jeff was Jeffrey Dahmer. He was a horrible, evil man who carried out some of the most disgusting and depraved acts in history. Murderer. Necrophiliac. Cannibal. He was all of that and more. Rapist. Torturer. Child molester. He did things that earned him the fifteen consecutive life sentences he was given. If anyone deserved the death penalty, it was Jeffrey Dahmer. The state he was convicted in didn't and doesn't have the death penalty though, so he was sent to jail until the day he died. It was less than three years between his sentencing and his murder. It was just shy of two years into his sentence when he was baptized. For seven months he received weekly visits from the minister who baptized him, and the two became friends. The minister believed that Jeffrey's faith was true and well founded. He believed that Jeff had changed from the man he had been.
It seems impossible to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian. It brings to mind the thought that if he can make it into Heaven, that God has no sense of justice. That if Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven, that you'd rather Heaven not exist at all. But that, you see, is missing the point entirely. If you think about it, as a believer, then the opposite is actually true.
If Jeffrey Dahmer isn't in Heaven, I hope it's because Heaven doesn't exist at all. If I don't meet him in Heaven, then I hope that death truly is the end and that there is no Heaven or Hell. Let it be reincarnation or oblivion, but if Jeffrey Dahmer isn't up in Heaven, singing hymns with the angels, then I don't want there to be a Heaven at all.
Assuming, of course, that his faith wasn't just a show. Assuming that his faith in God and Christ was real. I have no reason to doubt that his faith was false. This is, afterall, one of the only serial killers in history to show remorse during the trial. He did, in fact, admit that he deserved the death penalty and asked for no leniency in his sentence. He received no leniency in his sentence either. Had he lived for his entire sentence, he would have been released at the age of 969 years old*. So, running on the assumption that Jeff's faith was real, and that Christianity is true, then he will be in Heaven. When I get there, I will celebrate with Jeff that thanks to Christ's sacrifice all sins have been forgiven for those who believe in Him, from my sins that mostly harm only myself to Jeff's sins which cost seventeen people their lives and devastated an unknown number more.
To say that the blood of Christ cannot wash clean the sins of Jeff is to say that God's ability to forgive is finite. That, to me, is a far worse idea than the idea that Jeffrey Dahmer will make it into Heaven. Because then who is to say whether my sins, which are not particularly egregious although very numerable, will be within God's ability to forgive? My life and existence have been soaked in sin. My life is still bathed in sin, although I certainly try to resist the siren call of sin. Try as I might though, I have yet to achieve perfection, and I make mistakes, and I sin, and I am forced to humbly ask God's forgiveness. If I were to stop to pray every time I sinned, I doubt I would ever do anything but pray. But I believe, and have been taught, that God forgives all sins for those ask in faith for forgiveness. That He will provide us with help to resist sin in the future. That He knows our limitations and will judge us with understanding when the time comes. I believe that we are all imperfect, and that all imperfection is equally offensive to God, no matter how we delineate it here on Earth. A murderer is no worse to God than a liar. No worse to be an adulterer in deed than an adulterer in thought. When saving the adulteress, Jesus didn't say, "If any one of you is not an adulterer, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." No, he said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). All sins are equal when viewed through the lens of God's perfection, none are forgivable but through Christ, and all are forgivable through Christ. We may think that adultery is less bad than murder, or that bestiality is worse than theft, but in the eyes of God, all spell doom for those who do not ask forgiveness. But to those who ask? They shall live on in Heaven, singing the praises of He who can forgive all.
So I say this: Jeff, one day I hope to being singing His praises with you.
*Interesting side note: That's how old the oldest living man in the Bible is said to have been. "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died" (Gen. 5:27).
Fri, Mar. 30th, 2007, 05:35 am
What's So Amazing, That Keeps Us Stargazing? Sad Kermit, That's What.
If MySpace has done nothing else (and I'm fairly certain it hasn't), it has, at least, introduced me to Sad Kermit. This is simply awesome.
Fri, Mar. 30th, 2007, 05:26 am
Why Is It...
Why is it that even on days when I'm tired and want to go to bed early (id est 1am), I'm still up when sunrise is just around the corner? What the hell is wrong with my body that I'm almost totally nocturnal?
Sat, Jan. 27th, 2007, 03:49 pm
Consider the Following
Consider the following sentence:
"The man went berserk and killed his neighbour's wife."
Think of all that the sentence implies about society. No, really. Consider what that sentence means to you, and think about what that says about society. I'm patient, I'll wait while you do it.
Now compare it to this sentence:
"The man went berserk and killed one of his neighbours."
Is the first sentence innately more sexist than the second, or is the additional information it provides available only is such a manner? If so, why is it only available in what can be construed as a sexist manner?
"The man went berserk and killed his neighbour's wife."
Think of all that the sentence implies about society. No, really. Consider what that sentence means to you, and think about what that says about society. I'm patient, I'll wait while you do it.
Now compare it to this sentence:
"The man went berserk and killed one of his neighbours."
Is the first sentence innately more sexist than the second, or is the additional information it provides available only is such a manner? If so, why is it only available in what can be construed as a sexist manner?
Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007, 01:29 am
Remember When...
Remember when I said that happiness is sunburning while laying in the backyard of a complete stranger, eating from a paper-plate filled with fresh pineapple, watermelon, strawberries and grapes, all the while surrounded by friendly Texans? Well, I periodically keep in touch with one of said Texans, who happens to be a 15 year old girl. Whatever. I'll chat with anyone capable of having an intelligent conversation about... well... pretty much anything. Well, today I got a message from her that some people think the only reason she's coming back to Canada (she came with a group last year, and is coming with the same group this year), is so that she can elope with me. I've been accused of some pretty shady things in my life, but internet pedophiliac luring? Well, that's a new one. She thinks it's pretty funny, and so do I (particularly since I doubt I'll see her while she's here), but at the same time... What the hell? I've been known to get pretty flirty over the intarweeb, but I have NEVER flirted with a 15 year old (or younger, or even a few years older). I dunno. I've been up for a really long time today, and my brain can't really even focus on the issue, but... seriously... what the hell?
Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007, 09:26 am
Computer Games
For reasons completely unknown to me, I'm up at this odd hour of the morning. I mean, on days when I want to be up at this odd hour of the morning, I can't drag my ass out of bed. Today? When I want to be dragging my ass out of bed in two hours, I'm awake and doing fine, despite the fact that I got less than four hours sleep. Oh well.
I mention this only because I decided to play a little City of Heroes since I'm awake, but then I found that the servers are all down for routine maintenance. Boo! Toby is, for the record, level 39 now and well on his way to hitting 50 by week's end (thanks to double xp weekend coming up). He's also perhaps the one of the most fleshed out character in CoH, with both back story and... err... front story?... written out on the Pillars of Might website. The PoM are one of the oldest supergroups in the game, and the SG I belong to with Toby. My alts (all under level 15, most under level 6) aren't part of any guilds, and I'm not sure I want them to be (with the exception of one, whom I shall start a Super Villain Group for specifically).
So what the hell else have I been doing with my time? Other than work and sleep I mean? And mapping hypercubes of course. I've been playing the long-awaited return of Sam & Max by Steve Purcell, coming at us from Telltale Games. Is it as good as the original? Not so far, but there's still four episodes left, and I hold out hope that, taken as a whole, this sequel will be better than the original. So far it's been easier, in that the puzzles are more logical, which is both good and bad. Good, because I hate getting stumped. Bad, because half the charm of the original was that sometimes things just didn't make a whole lot of sense unless you approached them from the point of view of a cartoon detective dog and his unkillable sidekick rabbity-thing. I bring this game up for reasons which are twofold: Fold the first being that the original game (Sam & Max Hit the Road) is one of my favourite games of all time. Let me repeat that. OF ALL TIME! Moving on. Fold the second: The game is cheap. The whole season cost me $42,17 once US/Can conversion is taken into account. Each episode is cheaper than a movie, more entertaining than a movie, and lasts longer than a movie. You really can't go wrong. Still not sure? They even have a demo for you for free. You've got nothing to lose except the best spent $43 of you life. Do it!
I mention this only because I decided to play a little City of Heroes since I'm awake, but then I found that the servers are all down for routine maintenance. Boo! Toby is, for the record, level 39 now and well on his way to hitting 50 by week's end (thanks to double xp weekend coming up). He's also perhaps the one of the most fleshed out character in CoH, with both back story and... err... front story?... written out on the Pillars of Might website. The PoM are one of the oldest supergroups in the game, and the SG I belong to with Toby. My alts (all under level 15, most under level 6) aren't part of any guilds, and I'm not sure I want them to be (with the exception of one, whom I shall start a Super Villain Group for specifically).
So what the hell else have I been doing with my time? Other than work and sleep I mean? And mapping hypercubes of course. I've been playing the long-awaited return of Sam & Max by Steve Purcell, coming at us from Telltale Games. Is it as good as the original? Not so far, but there's still four episodes left, and I hold out hope that, taken as a whole, this sequel will be better than the original. So far it's been easier, in that the puzzles are more logical, which is both good and bad. Good, because I hate getting stumped. Bad, because half the charm of the original was that sometimes things just didn't make a whole lot of sense unless you approached them from the point of view of a cartoon detective dog and his unkillable sidekick rabbity-thing. I bring this game up for reasons which are twofold: Fold the first being that the original game (Sam & Max Hit the Road) is one of my favourite games of all time. Let me repeat that. OF ALL TIME! Moving on. Fold the second: The game is cheap. The whole season cost me $42,17 once US/Can conversion is taken into account. Each episode is cheaper than a movie, more entertaining than a movie, and lasts longer than a movie. You really can't go wrong. Still not sure? They even have a demo for you for free. You've got nothing to lose except the best spent $43 of you life. Do it!
Mon, Jan. 15th, 2007, 06:02 am
Hypercubes Resolution
D&D was scheduled to start today (well, Sunday, which is still today to me) at 6:00pm. I woke up at 1:00pm, grabbed a bite of lunch in the form of leftover meatloaf and pizza, and resumed trying to map a hypercube. I finally finished at 5:30pm. I had just enough time to check to make sure that I connected all the rooms (correctly I thought) before the first players arrived. Part of the problem is that mapping pretty much has to be done in two dimensions to be even remotely understandable. That's a moderate issue when mapping a cube. That becomes a major issue when mapping a hypercube. Going from three dimensions down to two: Moderate. Going from four dimensions down to two: Almost a dozen hours of dedicated, frustrating work by someone who's smarter than the average bear. All in all I mapped out forty-eight surfaces (eight square rooms) with two hundred eighty-eight (six ways provide access to each surface) connections. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to test out what traveling through it would actually be like. This resulted in some problems. Firstly that one of the rooms doesn't connect properly, but primarily, that map has to be traveled using relative directions, like "straight," "back," "left" and "right," not, as my group is used to doing, using fixed directions like "north," "south," "west," and "east."
For instance:
Starting in room 1, you head straight/east into room 2.
From room 2, you turn right/south into room 3.
From room 3, you turn right/west into room 1.
Now, from here, if you go what should be east (from your perspective), you go back into room 3, not into room 2 like you did when you first went out of room 1. To get into room two, you have to go in the direction that appears to be south to you now. North, south, east and west have lost all meaning in the course of three rooms. This is not something I took into account when doing this. Thusly, sometimes when they said they wanted to travel east, I took that to mean, "towards the right side of your map," when in fact they were meaning, "in a direction that used to be east to us, but is now north/south/west/up/down according to your map." It was very confusing for all of us, particularly since getting through the rooms was actually part of a larger puzzle, requiring one to go through certain doors to get to the next part, with which doors to take being part of a riddle that turned out to be much harder than I thought. Basically, my hack-n-slash campaign turned into a two hour puzzle for them to solve while I tried to trouble-shoot the issues encountered. Three beasties to fight when I had originally hoped for six or seven, and had planned for the possibility of as many as eighteen.
Having put all this effort into it, I'm going to refine my mapping system and try and make notes on how to use it properly. Maybe Dragon or Dungeon will publish it online. Hell, if it works as well as I hope, it may even make it into a sourcebook! ...alright, it will never make it into a sourcebook, because it's way too complicated, but it may make it onto the Wizards of the Coast website. That would be cool.
For instance:
Starting in room 1, you head straight/east into room 2.
From room 2, you turn right/south into room 3.
From room 3, you turn right/west into room 1.
Now, from here, if you go what should be east (from your perspective), you go back into room 3, not into room 2 like you did when you first went out of room 1. To get into room two, you have to go in the direction that appears to be south to you now. North, south, east and west have lost all meaning in the course of three rooms. This is not something I took into account when doing this. Thusly, sometimes when they said they wanted to travel east, I took that to mean, "towards the right side of your map," when in fact they were meaning, "in a direction that used to be east to us, but is now north/south/west/up/down according to your map." It was very confusing for all of us, particularly since getting through the rooms was actually part of a larger puzzle, requiring one to go through certain doors to get to the next part, with which doors to take being part of a riddle that turned out to be much harder than I thought. Basically, my hack-n-slash campaign turned into a two hour puzzle for them to solve while I tried to trouble-shoot the issues encountered. Three beasties to fight when I had originally hoped for six or seven, and had planned for the possibility of as many as eighteen.
Having put all this effort into it, I'm going to refine my mapping system and try and make notes on how to use it properly. Maybe Dragon or Dungeon will publish it online. Hell, if it works as well as I hope, it may even make it into a sourcebook! ...alright, it will never make it into a sourcebook, because it's way too complicated, but it may make it onto the Wizards of the Coast website. That would be cool.
Sun, Jan. 14th, 2007, 03:55 am
Hypercube Redux Revisited
I'm not sure where I made my mistake, but things aren't matching up the way they're supposed to. I'm currently seven hours into this attempt at mapping a hypercube. Seriously, this shouldn't be this hard. I mean, it's only eight rooms. The fact that each room has six potential floors depending on how you get to it shouldn't make a difference. There must be a better way than this. If not, D&D tomorrow is going to be a might bit less interesting than I thought, because I refuse to use a map that I know is faulty.
I'm moderately annoyed that nobody's mapped one of these out online. Or if they have, that I can't find it.
P.S. - I missed the Henry Rollins show tonight because I was busy trying to map the entire thing out. I'd be really pissed at myself if it weren't for the fact that it replays again on Monday evening.
I'm moderately annoyed that nobody's mapped one of these out online. Or if they have, that I can't find it.
P.S. - I missed the Henry Rollins show tonight because I was busy trying to map the entire thing out. I'd be really pissed at myself if it weren't for the fact that it replays again on Monday evening.
Sat, Jan. 13th, 2007, 02:33 am
Hypercubes Redux
Correction: Mapping a hypercube is easier if you use eight dice. It makes for interesting mapping with seven, in that it makes maps that don't even pretend to work once you move in more than one direction, but as I said, they don't even pretend to work. Going in one direction causes all sorts of Escher-esque travels, or even moving in a second direction once while moving in one direction, but the minute you start trying to zig-zag your way through... it all falls apart. Try it. If it doesn't break your brain, you're not trying hard enough.
Alright, time for attempt number three at mapping a hypercube. Perhaps I'll notice that it's not working in less than two hours this time. For the record, total time wasted thus far: 4+ hours in less than two days. If I weren't so OCD (undiagnosed still), this would be driving me mad. Or maybe it would be driving me less mad... hmm...
Alright, time for attempt number three at mapping a hypercube. Perhaps I'll notice that it's not working in less than two hours this time. For the record, total time wasted thus far: 4+ hours in less than two days. If I weren't so OCD (undiagnosed still), this would be driving me mad. Or maybe it would be driving me less mad... hmm...
