For some reason I mixed Sized Living and ended up reading "Closet Lizard". WTF is a lizard doing in the ISS?

Awesome! I look forward to the exact same gameplay and balance ported to a new engine :)

For years I've wanted to port Dark Sun I and II to modern architectures. Since the games have been released as freeware a few years ago, I don't think there's any good reason to avoid such a port; however, I've been unable to track down someone who can give me access to the source code (and I have good reasons to believe it does exist somewhere).

If anyone happens to know who may be contacted regarding this, please let me know...

1. Steal underpants
2. Upgrade them with high-tech devices and sell them to the military at 10x their original cost
3. Profit!!!

No, I was wondering if there was some kind of AS3 to ObjectiveC compiler or something similar. I recently wrote a C++ to AS3 "translator" and the possibilities are interesting.

Hey, I think the Farmville thing *is* significant, because the client is written in Flash... I wonder how do they get it running on the iPhone. A full rewrite is the most obvious possibility, but I wonder if there's a more interesting technology there.

Argh. My example with triangles was just that, an example. I was talking about "the nature of proof" and the impossibility to prove something doesn't exist suggested by the parent post. What I said can be expressed as "once you prove P(X) is true for all X, you can trivially prove that an X for which P(X) is false doesn't exist". Let me repeat that : ONCE YOU PROVE. I wasn't discussing whether or not you CAN prove it, or under what conditions you can prove it (I obviously assumed euclidean axioms), for my example that proof is part of the hypothesis. My example with triangles (which is valid, BTW, because by saying "once you prove" I automatically implied a set of axioms where you *can* prove it) was supposed to make my point easier to understand by lowering the abstraction level at which I was expressing it, but looks like no matter how low the abstraction level goes, some people go to great lengths to NOT understand it :(

Read carefully. I said "once you prove". If you *can* *prove* that, the non-existence proof trivially follows. You can obviously prove it starting from euclidean axioms, but you can't prove it with your set of axioms (euclidian minus the uniqueness of parallel lines?), so your comment doesn't apply to what I said. Who's the troll?

Nature of proofs? Of course you can. Example : once you prove that the internal angles of every triangle add up to 180, you can trivially prove that triangles with angles adding up to, say, 250 don't exist.