Tagaziel

(Sztywne) Pale Eternitu? I believe that any translation will sound awkward until you get used to it. I get this a lot while working on my book and setting, nothing sounds natural until I get used to it. On a more serious note, since there's little to go on, I'd wager construction-related words could be used in lieu of filar (if Filary Wieczności doesn't sound marketable enough). Kolumny, Podpory, Fundamenty, Stemple, Dźwigary etc. don't really sound more outrageous than Wrota Baldura or Okres Połowicznego Rozpadu Pierwiastków Radioaktywnych.

My mission in life.

Oh Lord. DICE is yet again making an AMERICA **** YEAH game. Here's an experiment. Turn on the trailer, mute the sound, play the following in the background: A near-perfect synch. I nearly died laughing.

As an European subhuman, I still have to wait one more day. ONE MORE DAY To make this bearable, I decided to make a rough first cut of my compilation of ALL DEUS EX HUMAN REVOLUTION EMAILS BOOKS AND EVERYTHING. It's here and it's kind of rough around the edges. Organizing 850 pages worth of content is never easy. ._.

Because the rain keeps falling on them. And it's a rain of ****, so it doesn't make anything better.

I know. I wanted to specifically note that I know this was old, but I wrote random instead. Ah, the wonders of typing faster than you think. Regardless, it's a fair point to bring up every now and again, at least in my opinion.

I'm getting a different impression. It's going to be a complex setting, without an overriding tone for everything like in Warhammer or My Little Pony (yes, the fundamental rule is the same for both). I expect there to be a more bleak tone in the wilder areas, such as the ruins of Eir Glanfath, to a more modern, Reneissance atmosphere in Defiance Bay and the more technologically advanced kingdoms. The world can be brutal and merciless, but still not stray into GRIMDARK territory. Our very own history is a good example (though you might say that in the grim reality of the 14th century, there was only war).

Not random, but just noticed this article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-12-gog-com-steam-sales-send-wrong-message-to-gamers I'm not sure what the point is. If a game is good enough you'll see people buying at normal price and not waiting for a discount. Plus, is the argument about long term monetary or creative value? The guys seem to confuse the two.

I've read through the wiki and I'll try applying it. However, I'm still rather annoyed by the combat system. I've fought in a variety of settings, I don't lag behind in terms of tech, yet I'm continuously getting whooped by countries despite having a roughly equal footing. Hell, it got to the point where fighting in the mountains as a defender with an equal size army still resulted in defeat. I'll try to post a pic once my anger dies down and I recover the PC from the lake I threw it into. Oh, now I see. Bohemia has a wtfpwning terminator leader with six-freaking-pips in fire and shock each. Thanks RNG, I love you too.

I have a solid economy and income, that's not the problem. The current situation is: Commonwealth, tech level 10, with a balanced ratio (4:2:1, I recall) against Muscovy, 10, same ratio. I can understand getting defeated occasionally by Bohemia, 11, but not when I've been trying to win a war for the past two days. All units are at the highest possible refinement level (I'm not trying to fight against Renaissance cavalry with medieval militias) and should, theoretically, be on equal footing. I have several Polish idea bonuses that apply to cavalry and units in general. I try to get balanced military leaders (last time I got wtfpwned was with a 2/2/3/- at the head of my largest army). The problem lies in the fact that unless I take on miniature countries nobody likes, like the Teutonic Order, I get lolpwned, no matter the setup. Army of equal size and makeups? No. Army twice the enemy size and with a makeup focusing on strongest and most powerful units? No. Fight together with an army of a technologically superior ally and face the enemy in advantageous terrain? No. It seems that for two days straight I've had bad dice rolls. Which is really, really annoying.

Europa Universalis IV. I love it, except for the way the game resolves battle. Unless I don't understand the system at all, it's beyond retarded. Armies of comparable sizes and composition, same tech level, I have the advantage of a good battlefield, yet I get wtfpwned every-single-****ing-time no matter who I fight against. Oh, it's you Bohemia? Please, come and wipe out an army LARGER THAN YOUR OWN nearly TWO TIMES. At the same time, please make sure to rape my army and country together with Muscovy, despite the fact that you shouldn't be able to defeat an army twice your size with the terrain and home field advantage. From what I gather, this is a typical situation with Paradox games this soon after release: the balance is so completely out of whack it's not even funny.

Which also explains our evolutionary success. The drive to know and understand. Experience and knowledge exist as complementary halves. One cannot fully grok without experiencing something. At the same time, experiencing without knowing is incomplete. Of course, this comes from the perspective of a person with a fundamentally scientific and naturalist viewpoint. Improves? Yes. But the precise mechanism of it improving people's lives is fundamentally scientific. By pushing the burden of existing off to a mythical entity, even partially, you have less worries in your life. The same by having a stiff, ready made McMoral code that requires no agonizing over what to do. Meditation has been extensively studied and the link is between the way the body reacts to it and how the brain rewires itself during meditation. It's actually mechanism that's understood at a basic level, but the deeper effects are still undergoing research.

Again, what insight? This is dancing around the issue. What kind of insight does spirituality give that science cannot? What kind of definite answers can it provide that science cannot? The mere fact that there are uncountable religions around the word purporting to be the one true faith is a clue that none of these are actually answers, but hypotheses without a shred of evidence behind them. You're consistently arguing for science as the superior. Critical examination of spirituality and human behaviour falls under the purview of sociology, psychology, and related sciences. Furthering the understanding of the world around us is likewise the domain of science, not spirituality.

I did and I saw science being used to dissect spirituality. Nothing there proves that spirituality is anything more than a scientific phenomenon occurring as a result of our wiring as a species. Furthermore, define precisely what is understanding. I can lean on physics to give me an understanding of how physics and, on a larger scale, matter works and interacts. I can use chemistry to understand the underlying principles of the world around me, biology to gain insight into the way living organisms work and interact, geography to know how the world works, astronomy to grasp the universe, and a myriad of other fundamentally scientific disciplines to refine my understanding of the world around me. What, exactly, is close minded about rejecting avenues of thought that offer no insight or bear usable fruit at all? Especially when I have an actual intellectual discipline, philosophy, that provides the same kind of insight as religion, except without irremovable reliance on paranormal premises?

Just the fact that a certain belief existed throughout human history doesn't mean it's true. You're committing the classic fallacy of appeal to tradition/age. For example, identifying the precise mechanism for proliferation of infectious disease invalidated centuries of beliefs about bad air, magic, and all other more or less wacky ideas about the mechanics of infection. Another example is most of alternative medicine, which is supposedly based on centuries of "natural wisdom" but does precisely squat when examined with a critical eye. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're presenting both spirituality and science as equal, but different types of keys for understanding the world. In what way does spirituality help you understand the world? Does it explain how the world functions? How it came to be? Does it meaningfully improve life, like vaccines or advanced medical procedures do? Has spirituality given us the ability to harness fire, plant, metal, atom? It didn't. Spirituality is a fundamentally unfalsifiable thing that relies entirely on theories created without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back them up. Comparing spirituality and science as equals when one has given us so much and the other precisely squat is like comparing a dull cutting utensil to a Swiss army knife. Except you can actually eat something with the former, so even that's not an accurate analogy.

I'm surprised Rockstar did not try to secure a license not limited in time. My knowledge of U.S. licensing law is spotty, but surely that's an option?

Risen 2: Dark Waters - your typical Piranha Bytes game. Love the dialogues, though the setting could be a little more, say, original, rather than copy/pasting voodoo and pirates bolting it on the original Risen setting. Pretty fun otherwise. Wargame: European Escalation - OMG WHAT IS GOING ON WHY IS EVERYONE KILLING ME ;_; AKA Tagz discovers a truly strategic game and struggles to adapt after World in Conflict and Company of Heroes. Europa Universalis IV - finally completed the Crusader Kings II chapter of my megagame, time to lead the Intermarium into GLORIOUS FUTURE.

Dismissing religion as superstition has always puzzled me. It seems like an incredibly simplistic way to view human nature and spirituality. You'd have a point if there was the slightest bit of evidence that spirituality has some scientific basis.

I'm not sure you are aware of the inherent contradiction in your post. If the radiation was tolerable only for a short time, then the radioactive material could not be gone completely. Care to link that documentary for reference? I have a hard time believing a team was permitted to enter the reactor hall, including the reactor well and maintenance corridors where the melted fuel accumulated.

The difference being that the KSK is awesome and nothing ever goes wrong. ;P

"I've seen a documentary" is a pretty baseless argument, especially considering the fact that as far as I can tell, the reactor hall is off limits due to hideous amounts of radioactivity from the corium that formed after the core melted. Now, what you may have seen is reporters and reactor staff entering the control room, which is safe to enter as long as you bug out in five, max fifteen minutes to minimize exposure. The waste at Chernobyl is still a clear and present danger and a warning on how not to build and use power plants. Fukushima is pretty mild by comparison. Nobody died from radiation exposure so far and the situation is fairly contained. It doesn't stop ignoramuses from spreading the lies that the entire Pacific Ocean is contaminated. Or indiscrimnately sharing unrelated materials. Also, thank you Gorgon. May your head snakes stay virile.

Because clearly the public knows about every single successful deployment by special forces of NATO pact countries and a single failure is indicative of the overall condition of the NATO military. I hope I don't have to explain how ridiculous this statement sounds?

I don't suppose you'd donate genetic material for proliferation?

Yeah, medieval Europe was pretty nasty.