• Moose

Fantozzi

Member
  • Content Count

    1,844
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    14

Fantozzi last won the day on
April 27

Fantozzi had the most liked content!
View Past Leaders

About Fantozzi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
  • City-building game(s)
    SimCity 4

Recent Profile Visitors

2,768 Profile Views
  1. Pininfarina, Model X. Design study based on a Fiat 1100 Berlina - 1960. Obviously a reminiscence to the 'space race' era. @simmytu - ups. Think you're right. That happens when you repeat what car magazines write without checking yourself. So thank you for the hint.
  2. Lamborghini's first ever SUV, the Lamborghini Urus, announced for 2018
  3. "Head Over Heels" actor John Heard died at 72.
  4. I dont even know if I like SC4. I like the NAM to puzzle together a network, those millions of small props, the garbage cans and streetlights, the exhibitionist and dogs, the animated sheeps and shopping carts to put a scenery together, the different buildings from around the world. To let sc4 go would mean to let all the custom content go I collected over so many years and which offers so many possibilities to create and recreate. I wouldn't care much for SC4 and to replace it with some open source city builder ... but to replace those gigabytes of custom content with emptyness, with a very long list of what I miss in my new game - it makes me hesitate. For the sake of all the lots I made with PIM-X and lot editor, me, I would say to make SC4 open source is better than making an open source city builder from scratch. If my content doesn't work an a new program - why should I use it? Doesn't this become a case of defense - they develop new computers, new software - all much better than before - but you defend your old hardware and software against all the progress just because the old software is the only one that can read your old files - and this is: all the work you did? Your creative mind, you, having been genius at least once in your lifetime. Your poems, your music and the same your bats - you just throw that away because of the new software can't read it anymore. Who would do that? Algorithm rules, creativity means nothing? It's a little bit like you made a new frame. And now you discover Leonardos Mona Lisa doesn't fit the new frame anymore. And therefore you throw the Mona Lisa away and paint a new picture to match the frame (sadly Leonardo left the community and won't paint a new version anymore). It's like you make your creativity a slave to the software instead the software serves your creativity. So you keep SC4 like you keep a frame for the artwork that was done and that fits the frame. Can't say it doesn't matter if the frame is ugly. Shure it matters. But you simply don't throw the whole painting away because the frame is ugly. Burning a history of artwork of 14 years just to have a new museum? Who would do that? And that's the reason, imho, why we keep sc4 alive - like we keep an ugly frame alive for the nice painting it holds. Like we renovate an old, dilapidated museum the best we can to keep the artwork it holds alive. To keep it accessible. Therefore - everything that may substitute sc4 must be like a frame that can hold sc4 custom content. That's the 'mission impossible'.
  5. When I saw this, first thing that came to my mind were sharks. You know, sharks, they are so absolutely perfect animals. On the other hand - it took nature 450.000.000 years to remaster them again and again to achieve perfection. So - most probably - you did even outmach nature (as I strongly believe you were faster on this - but still as sharp).
  6. Sorry. I grew up in the Black Forrest.
  7. If it isn't for the reason I'm on drugs - the trees on the ave spread light too? They look if they are radioactive. Or bioluminescence? Maybe to dig there - seems to be a mod adding light where it shouldn't.
  8. Did I get this right - a liberian company infecting computers in germany to fight a local competitor with a cyber attack? My computer - used to post messages of love and peace - is a foot soldier in a war between stakeholders I don't even know their names?
  9. I know, instead of digging deeper into culture it's much easier to make religion the culprit. You save much work. And most probably I'm the stupid to make so many thoughts while I could be lucky instead naming always a culprit that's not me. But still whether the Bible nor the Koran holds an explict dress code the same way as many regional, school or company resolutions do, mostly different for males and females like at Disney f.e. Instead, if you go back in times – where this all started you may discover that in the arid climates of the middle east clothes first were used to distinguish lower and upper class people. If you weren't dressed well and covered your hair you soon had the desert dust everywhere – you were dirty. Slaves and farmers were dirty, they had dirty fingernails and scruffy hair and they were uneducated. So half clothed people were dirty people and they were the uneducated people. But there were also the fine people, the clean ones who had the money for fine fabric and to cover their whole body with it and under their clothes the stayed clean. And they used sharp stones to cut facial and genital hair. This is where the idear of 'purity' was born and from there leads a trace to the meaning of the word 'virginity' in a religious sense. It's a clean, taintless body and to keep it taintless you'll cover it. All this was done by social distinction - no religion anywhere. This is long before the monotheist religions got strong and even the burqa wasn't invented by Islam' but instead has its origins in Hinduism. These are Hindu woman: And this is an ancient greek statue from ~300 BC, far away from Islam, and it's showing an upper class woman: The facial cover is a sign of purity and sublimity – as you still have it as symbolism on wedding dresses – and wedding dresses are the same on this, no matter on which culture or religion we are. The hidden - that's the idear of the sancturay, the holy. You can't touch it, even not with your eyes. So this should be a first clear sign – those things about the female body appearing in variations in almost every religion and culture – that it's totally crap to say this is a product of a certain religion. It isn't – even christian brides wear veils to show purity and virginity. The idear of purity is universal. Now the first religion to apply this cultural feature of social difference and education as a question of ethics ( a sign you keep your body clean for God to show good manners for God and don't walk around like a godless slave) was Judaism. As you may know Christianity is a split-off from Judaism and for the first 60 years only jews could become christians – you had to be a jew before and respect jewish laws to be baptized. Therefore christian religion hadn't the need to develop a separated dress code until the christian church became institutionalized – and those dress codes are exclusive for uniforms – the dressing of a nun is the same as a dressing of a cardinal or a priest – they indicate a rank in the institutional hierarchy and aren't linked to common christian ethics but have their own symbolism – again, like in Islam there is no special dress code in Christianity so it can strongly vary from country to country. But there is nothing in Islam regarding clothes you can regard as an invention. The burqa has its origin in eastern culture not in Islam. To cover the body to show you are of good eductation is a sign social prestige in almost all cultures. Religion just took this 'good education' to make it a principle of 'serving God'. To my knowledge first time that changed in France at the royal court – when the rich woman wanted to show all their richness and wanted also to show the richness of their body - to show they are in good shape and not suffering like those drought poor. And therefore they needed a deep décolleté. This is absolutely not aligned to freedom of choice or feminism but only to decadence. It's aligned to the royals. Woman didn't gain any rights with the change of fashion. You have the same today at the oscars or on pop music. They show much of their body not for being feminist or being liberated but to play a game called 'upper society'. Now basically – what you do is to abuse femnism to defend high society games against religion. But against a specific religion - the religion of the poor. And to me, that's sad on both ends. You just throw both into the dirt – religion and feminism. Just to verify - the best educated, they also do best. They are most feminist. As in ancient times – the uncovered woman was object to man, his slave, not the covered woman. And in the deserts sands, the woman that could cover her face was the privileged. And now we play the game just vice versa. And now people use tradition by saying – your Jehova offends my Kant. Your God offends my atheism, my believe in high society . Can't get more absurd. Using feminism just to verify the line between lower class and upper class. Those people believing in God - they are poor in mind. And we are rich. Now to be upper class you have to be a feminist. It shows education and superiority against those half barbarian still covering their women. As if they still living in the dessert sands. Those desert people, the primitive class - the backward part of globalization. I wish I could make you see how decadent it is to make dress code a case of feminism, when you use it to distingush yourself from the dessert people. To say – I'm better than those dusteaters. The uneducated slaves hiding their woman, the sun kings showing their wifes breasts on facebook. Well, if we had less domestic violence doing so - maybe I could agree. As long - there is absolutely no feminism in this. The pressure on woman – how they have to be to please society – it's still the same like 2000 years ago. Only fashion changed. Nothing else. And if you take Jesus or Kant to argue why you do better on your women than those others, it's an upper class mind game to establish the superiority of a certain dress code. So next time I'll post here – I'll show you that my believe in Isaac Newton to be the true messiah is the best feminism of all. All the speed limits on the streets - they are suppression. All those rules are suppression. Except the rules I agree with. And so all culture is suppression except the culture I like. Now - isn't this the way an islamist terrorist would see the world? So we, using feminism the same way as he uses religion - where's exactly the difference?
  10. Did you know ... ... UrbanChaos, urbancreator, Urban_Shadow and UrbanLight, urban_atmosphere, urbanfog, urbanlife (urbanbee, Urbanrats, urbanseabear), UrbanGuy and UrbanChick, UrbanSoul, Urbanhunter, Urbanization, urbanculture and UrbanLegend (UrbanDragon, urbanKnight and UrbanPrince), UrbanExplorer and urbancartographer like UrbanEconomist and urbanaut - they are all inactive members of the Simtropolis community?
  11. Well, solution to that would be to show lots of things and release lots of them. No, seriously - I think it's like those prototypes and concept cars in automobile industry. They not always evolve into products but are some kind of storage for idears. And they are presented anyway on motorshows. Shure me, I'll stand there and ask - can I buy that? And the reply is: no, sorry, that's only a design study. So maybe a development thread is something similar to a motorshow. You can present upcoming models but also latest designs and idears, doing a showcase for the folks but also meet with coleagues and discussing new idears and future concepts, showing some 'behind the scenes'. I personally think development threads aren't limited to a single use and for an audience that wants to buy and drive. If the only question is 'can I drive it?' - you'd better never go to an automobile museum. Most cars there you can't even touch. But beauty isn't all about 'can I have it, can I touch it?" I'm a lucky man to have seen some incredible beautiful things in my life. And not to own them - like the sunset in Taormina - doesn't hurt as much as the idea, to die without having seen them. Melancholia and wanderlust are close relatives - and they wouldn't be without beauty. So what you might be afraid of - sharing only pictures of beautiful bats but not the bats everybody can own - is creating the feeling of melancholia. Like in childhood days the feeling of disapointment when on christmas you didn't get the present you were hoping for. But that's a confusion of luxury and beauty. Again it's like with cars - 'luxury cars' are about you can afford them or you can't afford them and they make up beauty by value. But this doesn't mean beauty always is made up by value. To have your bats in my plugin folder is luxury. And therefore I want to have them like I want to have luxury cars, to gather beauty. This may satisfy my demand for luxury but not my demand for beauty. So I'll ask for more bats. And even if I had a million bats I still would ask for more. Until I find - no matter how much I own I can't get satisfied regarding beauty. It's like being thirsty. You drink but after a while thirst returns. And this never stops. And the same with beauty - the desire for beauty always can be satsified by luxury only for a certain laps of time. So regarding this - imho it doesn't really matter how many bats you show here and how many you upload, the relation. You show beauty here and you are generous to offer luxury to download those beauties on the STEX. But with your uploads you will satisfy people only for a certain lapse of time. To avoid melancholia in the long run luxury isn't powerfull enough.
  12. As I believe this thread is mainly about mixing up cultural habits with religion (something like 'christians are more democrat') I think I am free to mention here that The Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) this week announced a stricter dress code for their members. Quote: Skirts, skorts, and shorts must now be "long enough to not see your bottom area (even if covered by under shorts) at any time, standing or bent over. This should be taken as an argument, that christians are affected by very different parts of the female body which - obviously - makes it a much more intelligent and less surpressing culture compared to those who want to cover the womans face. About freedom - it's a little bit where to set emphasis, isn't it?
  13. But it's difficult to use terms like 'ethical', 'quality' ... if the debate started on Nutella. It's more like: 'but your crap is more tasty than our crap'. It's like people in eastern europe are very sensitive for western softdrinks to have western flavour and they feel cheated if western softdrinks have the taste of the communist misery - to have 'Eastern Bloc Nutella' sold by western companies. 40 years they only got those grotty communist copies of so called 'Coke' - made a revolution to get free access to the real stuff - just to discover they get the same grotty copies again they had before. I don't think it's about 'food quality', it's about western crap to be 'authentic crap'. It isn't a debate about tomatoes or salad.
  14. To play truant is a bigger risk factor than smoking to come down with dementia.
  15. "The force is strong with you, young kellydale." (Quote from the movie "The return of the batter") Thank you for Ritz-Carlton.