bq. The single element array must be a “special case” if Flash will explicitly cast it into the return type of the function. Usually, I would expect a compile-time error for attempting to return the wrong type, especially in strict mode.
If what you're trying to return can be converted to the return type, having no compile-time error is not too unexpected. I don't think it's a special case for a single-element array - try returning an Object and see what happens.
<blockquote>
<p>The single element array must be a “special case” if Flash will explicitly cast it into the return type of the function. Usually, I would expect a compile-time error for attempting to return the wrong type, especially in strict mode.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If what you’re trying to return can be converted to the return type, having no compile-time error is not too unexpected. I don’t think it’s a special case for a single-element array – try returning an Object and see what happens.</p>
2009-11-08T01:05:39-08:00
0
true
4
1441306
33
63750
2009-11-08T01:05:39-08:00
46968
bq. However for the most part, it is majority rules.
Let's try reading my post again. As well, you might like to read the start of the "Purpose and Scope" section of the linked article.
Majority does _not_ rule, at least not on important issues regarding what rights people have. In fact, the _purpose_ of a constitutional republic is to _prevent_ the majority from tyrannizing minority groups.
<blockquote>
<p>However for the most part, it is majority rules.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s try reading my post again. As well, you might like to read the start of the “Purpose and Scope” section of the linked article.</p>
<p>Majority does <em>not</em> rule, at least not on important issues regarding what rights people have. In fact, the <em>purpose</em> of a constitutional republic is to <em>prevent</em> the majority from tyrannizing minority groups.</p>
2009-11-08T00:59:54-08:00
0
true
9
1441297
55
63533
2009-11-08T00:59:54-08:00
46968
bq. I don’t understand this logic. It seems that way to you even though the person who said it clearly had no intention of meaning that
Actually, this is _exactly why_ it needs to be brought into the spotlight.
Deep-rooted prejudices (such as "gay people are not normal"), _especially_ when people consider them non-discriminatory, are far more effective at keeping a group oppressed than open bigotry is.
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t understand this logic. It seems that way to you even though the person who said it clearly had no intention of meaning that</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually, this is <em>exactly why</em> it needs to be brought into the spotlight.</p>
<p>Deep-rooted prejudices (such as “gay people are not normal”), <em>especially</em> when people consider them non-discriminatory, are far more effective at keeping a group oppressed than open bigotry is.</p>
2009-11-08T00:57:05-08:00
0
true
9
1441291
158
63449
2009-11-08T00:57:05-08:00
46968
bq. But voting is exactly how we determine what things are or are not acceptable in our society. Each person has his or her own personal beliefs and we coexist by majority rules.
America is not a democracy. It is a "Constitutional Republic":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic.
America is made up of many different groups with disparate beliefs, and for one group (even if it happens to be the most numerous) to impose their will on others goes against the fundamental principles of the nation. "Majority rules" may well govern interactions between groups, but what the majority wants is supposed to have no bearing on what consenting adults have the freedom to do in private.
That is the whole reason the Constitution and the judiciary exist.
<blockquote>
<p>But voting is exactly how we determine what things are or are not acceptable in our society. Each person has his or her own personal beliefs and we coexist by majority rules.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>America is not a democracy. It is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic">Constitutional Republic</a>.</p>
<p>America is made up of many different groups with disparate beliefs, and for one group (even if it happens to be the most numerous) to impose their will on others goes against the fundamental principles of the nation. “Majority rules” may well govern interactions between groups, but what the majority wants is supposed to have no bearing on what consenting adults have the freedom to do in private.</p>
<p>That is the whole reason the Constitution and the judiciary exist.</p>
2009-11-08T00:43:08-08:00
0
true
9
1441268
52
63533
2009-11-08T00:43:08-08:00
46968
bq. Not only that, but my Movieclip (myFood) is not being removed entirely, only the visuals of it are.
That's the way removeChild works, yes.
MovieClips in AS3 act somewhat differently to how they do in AS2. They exist independently of the stage, and you can add or remove them at any time, and reuse them however you want.
The error occurs because you try to remove myFood a second time after you've already removed it - but that's only a symptom of the problem, and not the root cause.
Your problem is primarily one of variable scope - the new food you make in your makeNewFood() function is _not_ the same one you refer to elsewhere.
Change this line:
<pre>var myFood:Food = new Food();</pre>
to:
<pre>myFood = new Food();</pre>
and everything should resolve itself.
<blockquote>
<p>Not only that, but my Movieclip (myFood) is not being removed entirely, only the visuals of it are.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s the way removeChild works, yes.</p>
<p>MovieClips in AS3 act somewhat differently to how they do in AS2. They exist independently of the stage, and you can add or remove them at any time, and reuse them however you want.</p>
<p>The error occurs because you try to remove myFood a second time after you’ve already removed it – but that’s only a symptom of the problem, and not the root cause.</p>
<p>Your problem is primarily one of variable scope – the new food you make in your makeNewFood() function is <em>not</em> the same one you refer to elsewhere.</p>
<p>Change this line:</p>
<pre>var myFood:Food = new Food();</pre>
<p>to:</p>
<pre>myFood = new Food();</pre>
<p>and everything should resolve itself.</p>
2009-11-07T22:42:58-08:00
0
true
4
1441096
2
63927
2009-11-07T22:42:58-08:00
46968
bq. I see at least 5 violations of the posted rules,
Were you one of those moderators who was a stickler for the letter of the law instead of judging based on the situation? The most important rule is the one at the top, "Don't be a jerk", and it's deliberately vague.
Keep in mind that you don't know what private action may have been taken against individual posters.
If you see a post you think is inappropriate, be sure to hit the "Flag Post" button to alert the moderators to it. We are busy a lot of the time, and it's easy for us to miss stuff unless it's bought to our attention.
<blockquote>
<p>I see at least 5 violations of the posted rules,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Were you one of those moderators who was a stickler for the letter of the law instead of judging based on the situation? The most important rule is the one at the top, “Don’t be a jerk”, and it’s deliberately vague.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that you don’t know what private action may have been taken against individual posters.</p>
<p>If you see a post you think is inappropriate, be sure to hit the “Flag Post” button to alert the moderators to it. We are busy a lot of the time, and it’s easy for us to miss stuff unless it’s bought to our attention.</p>
2009-11-07T22:29:09-08:00
0
true
2
1441073
4
63926
2009-11-07T22:29:09-08:00
46968
Does everyone need to go to college?
It's a simple fact that there are industries which require a large volume of low-skilled workers - even in this day where much is automated. There need to be people who man a particular station on the assembly line, there need to be people who vacuum the offices of corporate executives, and there need to be people to flip the burgers at your local fast-food joint.
You don't need a college degree for that sort of stuff.
<p>Does everyone need to go to college?</p>
<p>It’s a simple fact that there are industries which require a large volume of low-skilled workers – even in this day where much is automated. There need to be people who man a particular station on the assembly line, there need to be people who vacuum the offices of corporate executives, and there need to be people to flip the burgers at your local fast-food joint.</p>
<p>You don’t need a college degree for that sort of stuff.</p>
2009-11-07T22:24:19-08:00
0
true
9
1441064
29
63861
2009-11-07T22:24:19-08:00
46968
bq. Not by government, I meant that all the systems are in place so anyone can care for themselves through hard work.
You will find that a lot of career criminals act that way because it's easier and more lucrative than doing an honest day's work.
As long as you can earn more money by breaking into your neighbours house and taking his television than you can by spending several hours flipping burgers or whatever other "hard work" is available, there will be someone willing to give it a try.
<blockquote>
<p>Not by government, I meant that all the systems are in place so anyone can care for themselves through hard work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You will find that a lot of career criminals act that way because it’s easier and more lucrative than doing an honest day’s work.</p>
<p>As long as you can earn more money by breaking into your neighbours house and taking his television than you can by spending several hours flipping burgers or whatever other “hard work” is available, there will be someone willing to give it a try.</p>
2009-11-07T22:19:46-08:00
0
true
9
1441049
7
63925
2009-11-07T22:19:46-08:00
46968
It is certainly possible to eliminate crime. That doesn't mean it's desirable to do.
_1984_ and _Brave New World_ both show societies that, given more years of stability, would become almost entirely crime-free.
<p>It is certainly possible to eliminate crime. That doesn’t mean it’s desirable to do.</p>
<p><em>1984</em> and <em>Brave New World</em> both show societies that, given more years of stability, would become almost entirely crime-free.</p>
2009-11-07T22:13:39-08:00
0
true
9
1441029
3
63925
2009-11-07T22:13:39-08:00
46968
<pre>function NonRepeatingRandom(chooseFrom:Array):Boolean</pre>
Everything you try to return from this function will be type-coerced to a boolean value. That's what declaring the return type as "Boolean" does.
Since splice returns an array, rather than an integer, your function will always return true - in the normal case because the array returned by splice is not null, and in the empty-array case because -1 is nonzero.
<pre>function NonRepeatingRandom(chooseFrom:Array):Boolean</pre>
<p>Everything you try to return from this function will be type-coerced to a boolean value. That’s what declaring the return type as “Boolean” does.</p>
<p>Since splice returns an array, rather than an integer, your function will always return true – in the normal case because the array returned by splice is not null, and in the empty-array case because -1 is nonzero.</p>
2009-11-07T22:10:01-08:00
0
true
4
1441019
30
63750
2009-11-07T22:10:42-08:00
46968
1. What parts of the bible should be taken metaphorically?
2. What parts of the bible should be taken literally?
3. What part of the bible gives any indication as to which is which?
<p>1. What parts of the bible should be taken metaphorically?<br />
2. What parts of the bible should be taken literally?<br />
3. What part of the bible gives any indication as to which is which?</p>
2009-11-07T22:03:58-08:00
0
true
9
1441001
161
63175
2009-11-07T22:03:58-08:00
46968
You just pass in a class object.
For example:
<pre>public class MyClass { }
public function doSomething(someClass:Class) {
var foo = new someClass();
}
doSomething(MyClass);</pre>
However, it seems like in this case, you might as well instantiate the item before you pass it in, for example:
<pre>addScreen(new MainMenu());</pre>
This gives you the advantage of being able to re-use existing items instead of having to recreate them every time you want them to be shown on the screen, as well as the option of passing arguments to whatever it is you want to show.
<p>You just pass in a class object.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<pre>public class MyClass { }
public function doSomething(someClass:Class) {
var foo = new someClass();
}
doSomething(MyClass);</pre>
<p>However, it seems like in this case, you might as well instantiate the item before you pass it in, for example:</p>
<pre>addScreen(new MainMenu());</pre>
<p>This gives you the advantage of being able to re-use existing items instead of having to recreate them every time you want them to be shown on the screen, as well as the option of passing arguments to whatever it is you want to show.</p>
2009-11-07T21:06:38-08:00
0
true
4
1440815
3
63913
2009-11-07T21:07:01-08:00
46968
If you're going to be focused on the programming, I would recommend not using Flash at all. Seriously, it's a pretty poor IDE for coding in.
Instead, I would recommend grabbing the Flex SDK, and using an IDE like FlashDevelop to code in - not only is FD far better than Flash for writing code, it's entirely free when used in conjunction with Flex.
<p>If you’re going to be focused on the programming, I would recommend not using Flash at all. Seriously, it’s a pretty poor <span class="caps">IDE</span> for coding in.</p>
<p>Instead, I would recommend grabbing the Flex <span class="caps">SDK</span>, and using an <span class="caps">IDE</span> like FlashDevelop to code in – not only is FD far better than Flash for writing code, it’s entirely free when used in conjunction with Flex.</p>
2009-11-07T21:02:58-08:00
0
true
4
1440798
2
63914
2009-11-07T21:02:58-08:00
46968
A bridge collapsed. Leaving the fighter and ranger on the other side of a 60ft. gap from the rest of the party.
We killed a bunch of goblins, then climbed down the 80ft. cliffs and swam to safety when we ran out of healing wands.
<p>A bridge collapsed. Leaving the fighter and ranger on the other side of a 60ft. gap from the rest of the party.</p>
<p>We killed a bunch of goblins, then climbed down the 80ft. cliffs and swam to safety when we ran out of healing wands.</p>
2009-11-07T20:56:44-08:00
0
true
2
1440769
13
63906
2009-11-07T20:56:44-08:00
46968
bq. Well, what if outside of the simulation, all things are deterministic, and only via the simulation are we able to experience free will?
How would you simulate a nondeterministic process such as supposed "free will" when you only have deterministic means available to you?
<blockquote>
<p>Well, what if outside of the simulation, all things are deterministic, and only via the simulation are we able to experience free will?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How would you simulate a nondeterministic process such as supposed “free will” when you only have deterministic means available to you?</p>
2009-11-07T20:52:09-08:00
0
true
9
1440732
152
63175
2009-11-07T20:52:09-08:00
46968
bq. Or our observations are being distorted.
Which still indicates that god is acting duplicitously by distorting our observations.
bq. God could be far more simulation-oriented than our current father complex.
In that case, would he still be the god of the bible?
<blockquote>
<p>Or our observations are being distorted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which still indicates that god is acting duplicitously by distorting our observations.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>God could be far more simulation-oriented than our current father complex.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case, would he still be the god of the bible?</p>
2009-11-07T20:35:24-08:00
0
true
9
1440651
148
63175
2009-11-07T20:35:24-08:00
46968
bq. DO you have any proof for this
1. The bible states that god created the universe.
2. The bible states some "facts" about the universe.
3. Those "facts" disagree with what we observe.
Either the bible is lying with its "facts", or god deliberately set up the universe to appear different to what it really is.
<blockquote>
<p>DO you have any proof for this</p>
</blockquote>
<p>1. The bible states that god created the universe.<br />
2. The bible states some “facts” about the universe.<br />
3. Those “facts” disagree with what we observe.</p>
<p>Either the bible is lying with its “facts”, or god deliberately set up the universe to appear different to what it really is.</p>
2009-11-07T20:29:58-08:00
0
true
9
1440621
146
63175
2009-11-07T20:29:58-08:00
46968
bq. What in the world are you talking about Jabor?
If the god of the bible exists, then he is duplicitous.
<blockquote>
<p>What in the world are you talking about Jabor?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the god of the bible exists, then he is duplicitous.</p>
2009-11-07T20:19:05-08:00
0
true
9
1440573
143
63175
2009-11-07T20:19:05-08:00
46968
That might be something worth complaining about, actually.
Of course, if you bought it on anything other than Steam you can just reinstall and play unpatched if you want. This won't be the first time (and it surely won't be the last) that Steam's forced patching has inconvenienced people.
<p>That might be something worth complaining about, actually.</p>
<p>Of course, if you bought it on anything other than Steam you can just reinstall and play unpatched if you want. This won’t be the first time (and it surely won’t be the last) that Steam’s forced patching has inconvenienced people.</p>
2009-11-07T20:16:57-08:00
0
true
3
1440560
20
63400
2009-11-07T22:30:21-08:00
46968
Meh. It hasn't affected the difficulty on Hard or Nightmare, so it's not really anything to complain about for people actually seeking a challenge.
<p>Meh. It hasn’t affected the difficulty on Hard or Nightmare, so it’s not really anything to complain about for people actually seeking a challenge.</p>
2009-11-07T20:14:38-08:00
0
true
3
1440545
18
63400
2009-11-07T22:30:21-08:00
46968
bq. The only possible scenario in which heaven would be boring, is if God is a liar.
If everything in the bible is the word of god, then you don't need to presume anything about heaven in order to show that this is the case.
Either god is lying to us in the bible, or he's lying to us by making the world _appear_ different to what the bible says. Or the god depicted in the bible does not exist.
Pick one.
<blockquote>
<p>The only possible scenario in which heaven would be boring, is if God is a liar.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If everything in the bible is the word of god, then you don’t need to presume anything about heaven in order to show that this is the case.</p>
<p>Either god is lying to us in the bible, or he’s lying to us by making the world <em>appear</em> different to what the bible says. Or the god depicted in the bible does not exist.</p>
<p>Pick one.</p>
2009-11-07T20:07:58-08:00
0
true
9
1440514
141
63175
2009-11-07T20:07:58-08:00
46968
It appears that SAT scores are scaled, to account for differences in the difficulty of tests from year to year. So differences in the "average" score don't mean much.
http://www.testmasters.net/sat/information/thesatscoringscale.aspx
<p>It appears that <span class="caps">SAT</span> scores are scaled, to account for differences in the difficulty of tests from year to year. So differences in the “average” score don’t mean much.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.testmasters.net/sat/information/thesatscoringscale.aspx">http://www.testmasters.net/sat/information/thesatscoringscale.aspx</a></p>
2009-11-07T19:13:09-08:00
0
true
9
1440284
14
63861
2009-11-07T19:13:42-08:00
46968
Don't copy-paste the code. That won't help you understand it.
Try reading the error message. Then go through your code, and count up all the '{' and '}' and making sure they match.
<p>Don’t copy-paste the code. That won’t help you understand it.</p>
<p>Try reading the error message. Then go through your code, and count up all the ‘{’ and ‘}’ and making sure they match.</p>
2009-11-07T18:16:10-08:00
0
true
4
1440133
2
63881
2009-11-07T18:16:10-08:00
46968
bq. ...There are also commented out sections in the code...
Lol'd.
Comments aren't compiled into the actual software, there's no way to get them by reverse-engineering the final image.
<blockquote>
<p>…There are also commented out sections in the code…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Lol’d.</p>
<p>Comments aren’t compiled into the actual software, there’s no way to get them by reverse-engineering the final image.</p>
2009-11-07T18:00:40-08:00
0
true
1
1440088
19
63834
2009-11-07T18:00:40-08:00
46968
bq. Assuming there is a heaven, which you are doing be stating “heaven would be” then you are absolutely wrong. Its pure 1+1=2 stuff here. Heaven is by definition the perfect place.
Possibly so.
However, it is possible to make judgements on the quality of the "heaven" as described in most religious texts (such as the Bible). And when I look at it, I see it pretty good for maybe a few thousand years, followed by eternal boredom. Anything which involves eternal existence is basically an infinite punishment no matter what way you look at it.
bq. The belief is not that humans go to heaven/hell, but their souls.
If it's this intangible "soul" instead of me as a person that gets this infinite punishment/reward, why should I care?
<blockquote>
<p>Assuming there is a heaven, which you are doing be stating “heaven would be” then you are absolutely wrong. Its pure 1+1=2 stuff here. Heaven is by definition the perfect place.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Possibly so.</p>
<p>However, it is possible to make judgements on the quality of the “heaven” as described in most religious texts (such as the Bible). And when I look at it, I see it pretty good for maybe a few thousand years, followed by eternal boredom. Anything which involves eternal existence is basically an infinite punishment no matter what way you look at it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The belief is not that humans go to heaven/hell, but their souls.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If it’s this intangible “soul” instead of me as a person that gets this infinite punishment/reward, why should I care?</p>
2009-11-07T17:50:40-08:00
0
true
9
1440053
136
63175
2009-11-07T17:50:40-08:00
46968