Pope

It would be kinda cool if Desmond were flashing from one timeline to the other.

Of course I was I was also right about Man in Black = Flocke = Smokey ( = Alex = Christian). Desmond was on the plane! Or wasn't he?

Finished ME1. Will finally be continuing Dragon Age now, but I'm still doubting between Human Noble and Dwarf Commoner. Are there any noteworthy differences between the two? I'm usually not very fond of playing a dwarf, but I read good things about it. Edit: Ah screw it, I'm not satisfied with how my human faces turn out, so I'll just go with the dwarf.

I'm happy with the Jacob vs Man in Black (aka Smokey?) story, and also looking forward to how Widmore and Hawking's backstory will turn out.

There's many such things that would've been handled differently if the actors had never decided or needed (due to doing other shows) to leave the show. Eko would've gotten a much bigger role. Rousseau would still be alive. Abaddon certainly seemed to have been set up for bigger things (but was likely dropped because of Fringe, although I still hope he'll make a brief reappearance to explain the miracle that happened to him). Alpert was barely seen in season 4, and would've been dropped if Cane hadn't been canned (thank god for that, since he's such a crucial character). Claire was nowhere to be seen in season 5, but will return in season 6. There's probably more. The reverse is also true. Henry Gale was never meant to last for longer than a couple of episodes, but due to popularity was made into the leader of the Others. That's what you get when working with such a big crew over a period of 6 years I guess.

Is it worth it visiting all the planets in ME1? Just did one, wasn't very exciting. And did they have to use Seth Green? As if his voice isn't annoying enough, his face also looks just like him.

Some more Mass Effect. Damn those elevators!

I have a Zen X-Fi and am satisfied with it. If I had known, however, that the X-Fi 2 was just a month away back then, I would've waited, since the latter one is FLAC-compatible.

Yes, that is exactly what it should mean. Isn't cancelling out the luck factor one of the main aspirations of your beloved socialism? As in eliminating social classes and granting equal starting positions? But because, like you said, ...it is impossible to accomplish. But anyway, I see that you're pretty much convinced that I'm an idiot, so I probably shouldn't bother arguing.

I just played some Mass Effect for the first time. I'm really not a big fan of the combat, but maybe I just need some time getting used to it.

Some subplots will definitely remain unresolved. I'm afraid they'll never answer why Walt was so important to the Others, for instance. Also, Desmond is not a main cast member anymore Which means we'll probably see even less of him than we did in season 5. If you only showed season 5 to people, you'd have trouble convincing them Desmond was ever a good character. I'm betting parallel timelines as the new theme.

I disagree, that's absolutely merit. Well I consider that luck, and completely separate from personal merit. I do, however, believe that everyone who is lucky should be able to gain from such luck. And that is not equality of opportunity, since lucky people undeniably get more chances at success.

I'm not going into crazy mode just genuinely curious about how you think things like merit, success, and equality of opportunity fit together. Besides, it might not be so rudimentary as you claim. Sure, athletes work hard in honing their skills, but there's no denying that most top athletes were simply born with a natural affinity for sports. They might have longer legs for example. I'd hardly call that a personal merit. To me it seems that the only real way of assuring everyone of completely equal opportunities would be to give them all equal starting positions. Now on a social level this might be possible in theory (although in practice it is an entirely different matter), by giving everyone the exact same education and material advantages (if any). However, on a genetic level things tend to get a bit more complicated. An intelligent person obviously has an advantage over less intelligent people in achieving success. In order to create equal opportunities, one would either need to hold back the intelligent, or give the stupid extra attention and chances to fully develop themselves. The first option seems unfair, whilst the second (if even possible) would require much effort, eventually leading us to question whether it's even worth it. Then again, with advances in biotechnology going the way they are, engineering people will actually be possible in the not so distant future, but is this something you would support? Or would you oppose genetically improving people, because this might result in others having less chance at success? In essence, what I'm trying to say is that although I like the idea of equality of opportunity, I feel it is much more an ideal than something that can ever be fully achieved, at least not without enormous consequences, which I do not believe mankind to be ready for. Therefore I do not believe in equality of opportunity, to answer your first question in this topic.

No, that's "equality of outcome." Equality of opportunity means that everyone has the same chance to succeed, and will succeed or fail based upon their own merits. Again, nice in theory. Are you really saying individual merit can be the one and only determining factor for success? That it can possibly overcome the enormous luck factor (on both a social and genetic level)? Besides, what is success? You use the term as if there's an absolute meaning to it. Say I'm born a cripple and I've developed the crazy wish to succeed in the Olympics (not the Specials!). If that is my view on success, who are you to tell me what success really is? But whichever way you interpret it, isn't success also an outcome? Thereby making equality of opportunity and equality of outcome pretty much the same thing. And what about merit? Wouldn't you agree that merit is intrinsically related with social and genetic advantages, whether you like it or not? Someone born into a caring family would be raised with an entirely different set of values than someone with abusive parents. The first one might, as a result, consider altruism a merit, whilst the latter one might find that he must constantly live up to his parents' expectations. Can you blame either of them? Neither of them ever decided to grow up into their specific families? So is it a merit of the first one that his values better suit our current social norm? Is a man born with an athletic body more deserving of a golden medal than a cripple?

Equality of opportunity is one of those things that look very nice and shiny on paper, but impossible to implement in the reality we live in. Everyone has different talents, some folks more than the next. Sports are a very good example of this. In practice, equality of opportunity would imply that people in the lucky sperm club would need to be handicapped in some form, just to give less fortunate people the same chances at success. Not only is that impossible, it's also completely retarded.

Just saying it's going slow

One hour later and we're at 20%...

Yes thank you, that was it! I'm getting closer. I now have Disk Management open, but I still don't know how to assign a letter. Edit: Wait I got it. It's formatting now. Thank you very much! Hooray another 2 TB to fill with stuff I'll most likely never watch.

I just put a new hard drive in my pc, but I can't find it in Windows (XP). There are currently 3 hard drives in my pc, and Device Manager shows me 3 hard drives: one Maxtor, one Samsung, and one WDC (which should be the new one, since it's a Western Digital Caviar). According to Add Hardware, "This device is working properly". So how do I gain access to it? I've had this problem with my previous hard drive as well, and I remember the solution being quite simple, though I don't exactly remember how.

It's entertaining, but it doesn't feel very roleplayish to me, at least not in the sense of choice & consequence. Sure, there's always a good and a naughty answer available, but I don't get the impression it matters much what you say.

thanks for that, I had a great laugh

Explosive arrows rock my world.

Most of those little clues never reach much further than the 2 seasons following it though. Season 1 for instance was obviously written with season 2 in mind, but less so with further seasons. Seasons 4 and 5 (and most likely 6 as well) seem to be most coherent with each other, which really isn't all that strange considering that after season 3, the writers finally set an end date, and were therefore able to tightly plan the rest of the story. The only major clue I can think of that dates back from season 1 is Locke's prophetic line during his backgammon game with Walt: "Two players, two sides. One is light, one is dark." (which were sort of revealed in the season 5 finale). I just hope some of the more important plots from the early seasons don't wind up with many loose ends. Walt, for example, seemed like such a big deal in the first 2 seasons, but it looks a lot like they already finished that plot. It's almost like with Arrested Development, sweet! Buster (upon seeing his old hand-shaped chair): "I never thought I'd miss a hand so much."