Zoraptor

Well, the original intent was to pick a verbal fight, but then I changed my mind... So, at the time I wrote it, wouldn't it be considered trolling? Interesting question, I guess if trolling were a crime it might at least be Conspiracy to Troll or something similar. If we wanted to be a bit more philosophical we could view saying that it was meant as a troll as a type of meta-troll, where the troll is achieved by saying that something else was meant as a troll?

It's meant to be Supernatural, the TV show. Which I presume is on the CW network in the land of stars and stripes.

If you're actually happy you didn't get a response then it cannot really be trolling. The classic troll is saying something controversial because you want a(n intemperate) response, after all. There certainly is a point to be made about the US having tools to control the internet that make the Great Firewall look like a 3 year old's lego castle, even without the added context of SOPA/ PIPA.

Yep. Hope is a precious commodity, don't waste it on Back In Action unless a real time, fog of war free, JA2 'reimagining' appeals.

Yep, my computer is more than 5 years old, and was only mid range when new. Amount I've spent keeping it able to play new games? 130USD if you count the replacement graphics card for when my old one went to Silicon Heavan and a wholly discretionary 2->4GB RAM upgrade. Thats... 3 new games in the US, or less than 2 new games here. And if I were selling it 2nd hand I could barely give it away (in fact I almost certainly would give it away if anyone wanted it, as it isn't worth anything for resale).

Given the Mitsoda comment I thought you were referencing Ferret Baudoin and NWN2.

Magnets work exactly as they should.

Some do try and do metriced reviews, scores out of ten for a range of different categories like sound graphics etc. It doesn't really work all that well though, not least because the problems with game reviews goes a lot deeper than just the scoring system, extending to short deadlines, being beholden almost entirely to the people you are reviewing and, frankly, a lot of reviewers being simply dreadful at reviewing. It's also fundamentally subjective in everything except narrow technical aspects.

SR3 didn't do well enough though. U-draw is the catalyst for their current problem but their primary problem is that while every other large publisher has one or more cash cow WOW/ COD/ BF/ Sims/ GTA/ AssCreed/ Madden that will reliably supply them with periodic Large Wodges of Dosh THQ's successes aren't large enough to recover from problems or build up margin for error. 2k and Ubisoft would be in the same boat (even more really, neither of them are in great shape as it is) if they didn't have GTA or AssCreed. Some of THQ's ideas have been a bit... harebrained too. They planned a Red Faction TV show, iirc.

Even the forum software thinks this is cool news! The Origin requirement has actually been on the EA website since ~ October, they've got all their back-of-box disclaimers on there.

It is more than just semantics. Science and the scientific method requires 3 basic things: 1) A testable hypothesis 2) Objective measurement 3) Ability to replicate and repeat, to show that results are consistent [--> Revision, rejection or lack of rejection of hypothesis] To use one of those horribly over/mis used internet catchalls "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". Science works increasingly poorly as you move towards the abstract/ subjective since that is by definition unmeasureable/ not objectively measureable and increasingly well as you move towards stuff that can be described by absolute means. That's simply a limitation of science.

The actual quote you get from Centeol is this: The name is slightly different, Icarus vs Irenicus, but the powerful wizard part is accurate. Tanova was one of the named vampires in Bodhi's lair. He probably would not have been called Irenicus at that point anyway, since that was the name he was given when he went bad ("Shattered One" or similar, iirc). I thought that his old name was mentioned in BG2 but that may just have been Bastilla Femshep whatshername calling him "Joneleth" instead of Jon.

Nah, it's not a strawman. It's more that the subjective and objective are related but immiscible concepts. Objectivity requires, at its base, an ability to independently measure and quantify and is absolutely essential to a scientific approach. There is objective proof* that objects attract each other dependant on mass, that if you combine excess oxygen and carbon via an ignition source you end up with carbon dioxide, that chimps and humans are closely realted genetically etc. The question of whether god exists is entirely immiscible with scientifc observation- he could not be measured or quantified in anything other than a wholly subjective sense. Same as with the metaphysical question of whether any of us really exist. Basically you cannot use science to prove/ disprove the abstract. You could probably say much the same thing about "honour" (cannot be objectively measured) as god, but that does not mean that honour doesn't exist. *technically consistent failure to disprove

But again the Atheist has the better position. It is logcial after all to demand proof of an on the face of it pretty outrageous claim. More logical certainly than to propose erecting an invisible wall between the imperical and the metaphysical and demanding that they not be allowed to affect one another. It's not a perfectly balanced dichotomy. One side is cheating by proposing that it need only supply anecdotal evidence of its existence. I don't like the "proof/ logic" argument. It's impossible to (for example) prove logically that other people have independant existence- the only thing provable is that I apparently have independant thought, there's no proof that anyone else exists independant of me and it's impossible to furnish actual proof of it. Sure, other people give a good facsimile of having independant thought but I'm sure it's just a very advanced simulation as that fits all the evidence as well as it being "reality" does.

I appear to have bought... two (!) 2011 games. There's also been a depressing amount of "install game, start playing game, have no time for game, forget about game" mixed in. I'm likely to pre-order three titles over Feb-March which would mean buying more 2012 titles in the first quarter than for the entire crop of 2011.

Grimoire. Age of Decadence. Needed to exclude indies as well as MMOs.

Other young Julio-Claudian emperors include Caligula and Nero, mind you. The main factor in Augustus doing so well was that he was personally very competent and the people he surrounded himself with were also very competent (plus he wasn't a total nutcase, unlike little boot and the World's Greatest Artist). Whether the young Mr Kim is so lucky is an open question at this point.

BUT I NEVER GOT AROUND TO DOWNLOADING MY POSTS FROM THE CODEX!!! HOW CAN THEY DO THIS??? I'M GOING TO IMMEDIATELY DOWNLOAD MY POSTS FROM RPGWATCH IN CASE THEY'RE NEXT!!!

It's hot and sunny here. Somehow I've ended up with a 4kg ham and a 4kg turkey- for two people, since nearly all my relatives are in the UK at the moment. Had too much to eat already, and approaching too much to drink too. Merry Christmas all.

Is there another ME3 apart from the one that's coming out in early March? Given the weird accounting years companies have that could be fiscal Q4 2012, perhaps.

It's whatever the story calls for it to be. If it needs to be a frigate, it's a frigate, if it needs to be a pocket cruiser it's that. If it needed to be the offspring of two overly amorous reapers who got a bit drunk on intergalactic ale after a spot of planet busting and ended up Regretting It In The Morning then it'll be that. It's like the time(s) you get trapped by foozle in a ludicrously contrived situation you've seen coming a mile off in [almost anygame], it's what the plot calls for that's the determining factor, not any theoretical 'logic'. To be fair though, being able to look out the window when all else fails is a pretty sensible idea, even if having a single pilot sitting in an exposed position is on the face of it absolutely ludicrous.

Dunno. Probably the best answer is it's the same place that humans became humans, rather than just 'sophisticated' monkeys? Whether that's H. sapiens (sapiens), H. habilis or whatever classification they currently like for H. sapiens neanderthalensis is an open question. Not a great question though, really. Religious people will/ can just say God Did It, atheists will either deny that a soul exists or regard it as different from how the religious people do. Even the religious people won't regard it uniformly as the Eastern 'religions' (Dharmics/ Hindu) regard it differently to western ones.

I'm slightly more religious than a slab of concrete- I've been to church services twice (?) in the past 15 years, both times when my sisters were married (one of them to an atheist)- and find Evangelical Atheists alternately hilarious and highly annoying, largely depending on how much their views are similar to mine. Usually it is more similar = more annoyance as I always end up asking "why do you care so much about what other people believe? Doesn't effect you so none of your business" in my head in those cases. Evangelical Atheists are however frequently very good indicators that the worst aspects of religious zeal actually have very little to do with religion*, and have far more to do with the capacity of humans to believe that people who have mere superficial differences are inherently inferior. I do rather like religion though, I like visiting temples/ churches/ mosques etc and like almost all religious art and music, and think that religion has been a huge influence on what makes us actually human as opposed to upright-walking-99%-chimp-reasoning-machines, and I'd describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. *per South Parks's United Atheist Alliance etc

A 27 year old who's a general of said army... minus any actual military training. He went to the Kim Jong-Il military academy where he graduated as a **** general. Forever_Arone.jpg