JadedWolf

I think you might be posting in the wrong thread...

I know, but that's really not my cup of tea. One of the reasons I never could get into the Icewind Dale series much. I suppose at least classes should be a lot more flexible in the new system, which hopefully means we won't have to take anyone along we don't like just because we really need their class skills. Still, three more companions would be worth it if you ask me. The more choice, the better.

I could see about putting more money into the cause, if it meant more companions were added, and if it didn't add months and months of delay to the release date. I like to play games like this through multiple times, and then having more companions to choose from is a big plus. Also, I always hate it when there's only that one priest to choose from, and her personality is totally opposed to that of my player character.

Steam kicked you out? What's the deal with that?

So I have mostly only had positive experiences with Kickstarter projects so far. Sure, a lot of them have to change their release date, for obvious reasons. And some are a bit short on content (I am looking at you, Shadowrun Returns). But all in all, Kickstarter has been a success for me. With one glaring exception. Godus. I can somewhat understand people who say it will improve with time, and that it's only a beta at the moment but still... I certainly am not enjoying it, and I can't see in what they delivered so far something which I thought I was backing. It seems to mostly involve keeping yourself busy by tediously clicking on things until you get RSI, with no other reward than to be the caretaker of a bunch of lazy ingrates who die off when you leave them alone for five minutes. But, that's completely besides the point. Because quite honestly, it can happen. A game can disappoint, and go in a completely different direction than you thought it would go. If that was all, I'd shrug and move on. But the whole thing has been so very dodgy. Alarm bells started to ring when Peter M. announced that the winner of the Curiosity clicking game was going to be the God of all players in the game that we as backers funded. Apart from raising concerns about whether our voice would be heard over that of this newfound deity, I couldn't help but think that they never had a clear idea of what the prize for curiosity would be until they had Godus kickstarted and only then decided to make this the prize. So like many were suspecting, Peter M.'s hyping up the value of the prize -a "life-changing" experience- only served to sell his clickity click game. Brilliant showmanship of course, but not what you want to learn about someone whose project you've backed in the good faith that he'll deliver what he promised. Then, as the beta launced, there were signs that 22cans was actually aiming for the mobile crowd. Anyone who has played the game in beta knows what I mean. It's not just that there's was at one point a store (which was removed after complaints from backers, though it is not sure if it may not return later), the whole interface and the gameplay just screams "mobile!". Indeed, they have already admitted that they plan to release it on mobile, and here's the kicker, for free. So, you back a project for PC, only to get a mobile game, and then you lean that the actual target audience will get it for free. Should I take solace from the fact that they will probably pay through their noses in microtransactions for the pleasure? Maybe. But it certainly leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Then, there was the Steam sale. I don't mind Steam early access, but who thought it was a good idea to sell this early access at a significant discount during a Steam sale? They must be really hurting for cash to slap the people who kickstarted their project in the face like that. The bottom line seems to be they stopped caring about their backers the moment they got their money. It's safe to say I won't be backing any of their Kickstart projects again. If there is going to be one, because I'd be surprised if Godus is going to be a success for them if things keep going like this. So... Yeah. Has anyone else had a disappointing experience with Kickstarter projects so far?

I am also missing the kickstarter badge.

Thanks for the update. It's refreshing to be able to actually see behind the curtain for a change.

Honestly guys, if I was a moderator I'd lock this thread. I am sympathetic to the fact that moderators here are very open minded, but this thread is a trainwreck.

I'll leave the question whether I believe in human driven climate change alone, considering I honestly don't know enough about it. But if it is true, to be honest, I think unless some brilliant inventors come up with something soon, we're doomed anyway - and turning off the light when we leave the room isn't going to change that. Humans are just not great long term thinkers, and they don't cooperate well - especially not when greed comes in. Good luck trying to tell countries like China that their people shouldn't drive cars. And the human population just keeps on growing, which causes enough problems on its own. But, one thing about this debate strikes me, and that is that it is said that it is said that there is money in "alarmism". Now, that might actually be true, but if I look at the other side of the coin, isn't there a lot more money to be made disproving human driven climate change? Wouldn't countries like China and India pay big bucks if there were scientists who could give the definite proof that humans did not affect climate change? If only so that Western countries would stop nagging to them? Or how about the energy companies, or the car companies? You don't think they'd be willing to shell out? Hell, if there was any scientific proof that could reach a majority consensus among the world's top scientists that humans do not play a role in global warming I'd be willing to pay, just so I would sleep better at night. A full 50 bucks, because, you know, I'm not that rich, man.

They've recently joined the Euro, so the obvious answer is bankrupt or part of Germany. Realistically though, in the absence of responses from actual Estonians you'll get limited usefulness from this thread if you're seriously considering moving there as everyone's experiences with it (including mine; backpacked through about a decade ago, nice country to visit but I cannot entirely disagree with oby's description either) are more tourist orientated. It'd be like getting views from tourists to New Zealand, they can only really say that the dollar is high and Queenstown is nice, they probably won't know important residential things like that housing is massively overpriced (cheers, overseas speculators/ supine government papering over cracks) and economically everything except things that go moo is a bit dodgy. You could also check expat forums, to see what experiences have been like for foreigners who have moved there. Something like http://www.expat-blog.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=280

Your mobo will be fine as long as it has a PCI-e slot. As for what 7850 to pick, I'd pick one of the two you linked with 2 GB VRAM.

Unless you want to crossfire two 7950's, there really is no need for a 850w PSU. If you really do need a new PSU, and all you want is to build a budget system with a 7850, all you need is a nice quality PSU in the range of 400-500w. You could go with less, but having a bit of room for upgrades is a bonus and they won't break the bank. There's a nice list of good PSU's here, at overclock.net. Intel don't typically drop prices of their previous gen, and although retailers might do so of their own initiative, it's probably a bonus rather than something to expect to happen. They just tend to quietly phase them out without fanfare. And the RAM should be fine really - technically Intel has lowered the maximum supported voltage for DDR3 on their platforms (since Sandy I believe) to 1.575V (1.5V standard with 5% tolerance), true, but even the 1.65V requirement commonly seen in 'performance' RAM back in the day ought to easily run at the standard 1.5V, perhaps with frequency/timings set to the default rather than the XMP profile. Low voltage DDR is hardly a new thing, my 3.5 year old Lynnfield system was built with 1.35V DDR3. It's a shame that memory prices have spiked lately, since the start of the year. It also seems that Samsung have stopped production of their 1.25V "magic" RAM, which was not only a bargain, but outperformed just about all of the stupid blinged-up "enthusiast" RAM around these days. (I particularly loathe the trend of massively tall heatspreaders) TBH, when he said three year old build, I thought DDR2. I was thinking he probably had a budget build, not the state of the art build he actually has. As for Intel not dropping in price, maybe not that much, but mobo's may drop in price when the new line comes out. Honestly, I wouldn't know for sure, but waiting a few months to find out seems worth it to me. When I bought my current graphics card, and a few months later it had a massive pricedrop, I wanted to bang my head against the wall :/.

Can my 350W power plant actually power the 7850? And will it work with my motherboard DG965WH: http://downloadmirror.intel.com/15052/eng/DG965WH_TechProdSpec.pdf I appreciate the help guys Which of these models? Not all are available even though the prices are listed... These four are available: http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-2gb-gddr5-11200-07/comp_comp_vga/130/3427 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-2gb-gddr5-11200-00-20g/comp_comp_vga/130/3171 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-gddr5-oc-11200-16-20g/comp_comp_vga/130/3327 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-11200-16-10g/comp_comp_vga/130/3319 It would help to know what model power supply you have, some power supplies claim to deliver more than they actually do. A standard 7850 uses about +- 90W, so theoretically it is possible to power your system with a 350w power supply. This has to be a quality power supply though, not some cheap no-name timebomb.

Okay, right. And this is the last thing I'll say on the matter. Of course I do feel people have the right to defend themselves and other people from harm, and if that requires lethal force, so be it. That is something completely different though from putting an unarmed man in a chair and pulling a switch. Or whatever method of capital punishment you prefer. As for the "no matter what", you have to see this in context. "Let me try to explain it using other kind of sentence. "No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere." Now, I am against flogging. I think it is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized justice system. However... Given the choice between a flogging and a life sentence, which would you choose? The pain from the flogging will only last a few months, and you might still suffer from the scars afterwards, but you'll still be free. My point with this example is: my opposition to the death penalty does not have to mean that I think that it's a worse penalty than a life sentence, I just don't think it is an appropriate penalty for a civilized society. It is not because I feel merciful towards murderers and child rapists, but because I do not want our collective conscience to be burdened by something which I consider to be immoral. If you still want to ask why... Well, simply because I feel it is morally wrong. I don't have a holy book I can point at where it says it is wrong, I don't have a belief in some higher justice. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have a moral code that guides me, and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what." My answer was specifically aimed towards the question of why I am against the death penalty. If you want to pull it out of context and claim I meant something else with it, be my guest. Just don't expect me to go along with it. Well, I can assure you that I have no plans of subjugating or destroying anyone's culture. I also already live in a country that doesn't have a death penalty, so I'm a happy camper. You're free to democratically decide what you do in yours. I didn't come here to force my views upon anyone, I just came here to share my point of view. If you don't like that point of view, that's fine, and it won't ruffle my feathers.

You're not even really engaging in a discussion at this point, you're just ridiculing my point of view. Well, you'll excuse me if I don't really feel like wasting my time talking to you, then.

You wouldn't feel guilty, you would be dead: Er, no. If someone dies because someone else took the last life jacket, that's tragic, but not murder. I can even imagine that people who are drowning would, in their instinct to survive, push away people, or even push them under. That is not the same as actually willfully killing someone. But, like I said, if it happened to me I would feel guilty about it. It really feels to me like you are trying to argue on semantics here. I am pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

As for what I think should happen to the person in the OP. I think this person is beyond rehabilitation, on the grounds of insanity. He should be put in a mental institution/prison for the mentally insane, for the remainder of his life.

Thrashman: to answer your second question: what I think jail and the judicial system are for. I don't think they are meant for vengeance, I think they are meant for keeping society safe. They are useful for the period in which the criminal is locked up, as society is protected; the criminal won't be able to harm anyone again. In that respect, a life sentence serves the purpose of protecting society perfectly well. Whether the criminal enjoys his time in jail, from that perspective, is irrelevant - though of course, the criminal should not be too much of a burden on the tax payers. And yes, you are right, and that was what I was trying to say. You can't argue morality. As for your example: "For example if you ship goes down and you and another man are stuggling in the water and showing eachother for that one life jacket - and he dies because you took it or showed him underwater during the stuggle. This isn't consider murder." It is not murder, but if that happened to me, I would feel very, very guilty for the rest of my life.

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed. Like I said, it is a principle thing. On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death. I see no contradiction. The contradiction comes in the form of hte question WHY? Why do you lock poeple up in jail? waht is hte purpose of jail and judicial system? Vengance? Punishmnet? In that case waht is correct would depend on what you consider a bigger punishment - death or imprisoment. Rehabiliation? People who are serving life won't rehabilitate. Why do you refrain from death penalty? Mercy? Or a matter of principle? If it's mercy, then it again depends on what you consider more mercifull - death or life in prison. If it's a matter of principle then again it's a question of why. Hypotheticly speaking - you see a man butcher children with your own eyes. He is remorsless and thinks nothing of it, in fact he's been doing it for a while and not just children. Looks forward to prison. His guilt is 100% factual. No possibility of error. You are judge and jury - what do you do? Let me try to explain it using other kind of sentence. "No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere." Now, I am against flogging. I think it is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized justice system. However... Given the choice between a flogging and a life sentence, which would you choose? The pain from the flogging will only last a few months, and you might still suffer from the scars afterwards, but you'll still be free. My point with this example is: my opposition to the death penalty does not have to mean that I think that it's a worse penalty than a life sentence, I just don't think it is an appropriate penalty for a civilized society. It is not because I feel merciful towards murderers and child rapists, but because I do not want our collective conscience to be burdened by something which I consider to be immoral. If you still want to ask why... Well, simply because I feel it is morally wrong. I don't have a holy book I can point at where it says it is wrong, I don't have a belief in some higher justice. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have a moral code that guides me, and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what. And if that means nothing to you, may I then ask, how would you feel if I was religious, and felt this way because it said in the bible "Thou shalt not kill". Would you feel more sympathetic?

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway. I've stayed at hotels worse than that. It's a bit of an aside, but organised crime definitely 'shops around' for countries with weak state power and 'good' jails. It's one reason why so many drug smuggling routes go through Holland. I think it probably has more to do with the central location of the Netherlands in Europe, the status of Rotterdam as the largest port in Europe, and the difficulty of checking all the cargo that comes into that harbour.

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed. Like I said, it is a principle thing. On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death. I see no contradiction.

Personally, I would wait for the new generation of Intel processors to come out. Even if you don't want to buy the latest generation, it is sure to cause a pricedrop. As others here have said, if you are interested in gaming, your most pressing upgrade is the GPU. Considering that your current computer is three years old, you can pretty much forget about reusing your RAM. Also, be sure to check the quality of your power supply. You can buy expensive computer parts for everything else but if your PSU is a heap of junk you risk it all going up in smoke one unlucky day.

Gee, thanks!

While I agree that what was described in the OP would be as close to evil as I can imagine, I do not think the notion of "evil" has any room within a justice system. A justice system based on the judgement of "Is someone evil or not" conjures up the image of a witch hunt, complete with torches and pitchforks. If someone is plain evil, we don't need a judge or jury. We can just lynch him right here and now, and be done with it. I am also against the death penalty, on principle. Even if someone is 100% guilty. Not because I feel sympathetic to rapists and murderers, but because I think killing someone is morally wrong, even if the person to be killed is a real life Hannibal Lector. (And guess what, I am an atheist! Isn't that funny, atheists can have morals too!) But even if I look at it rationally, I don't see the benefit in the death penalty. Aside from the chance that you're in fact killing an innocent person, it's more expensive than a life sentence, and also less of a punishment. I mean... Most people who are in favour of the death penalty consider it to be the worst punishment the justice system can dish out. But personally I would think that compared to spending your life in jail the death penalty is the easy way out. That being said... All of this relies on a working justice system. If the justice system doesn't work, all bets are off. If someone would harm my loved ones, and the justice system would fail to deal with them, I don't know what I'd do.

Mayors in Japan are chosen by popular vote. He's the mayor of Japan's second largest city, with 2,7 million inhabitants. I wouldn't call that insignificant. Having said that, I don't think anyone says we should look down our noses at the Japanese. It's just shocking to hear a man in such a position say these things. And it is not an incident. Just last year another Japanese mayor denied the massacre of Nanjing. You can't make Japan's problematic treatment of its past go away by pointing out that you have ultranationalists everywhere either. Do German schoolbooks deny WW2 atrocities? Are there German politicians in important places of power that deny German atrocities in WW2? This really is a problem that is particular to Japan. Edit: The reason why this sort of thing is surprising to me, is because it is happening in a democratically ruled country, which is basically one of the 'western' countries. I am not surprised when the Russians say such things as that the Baltic states 'chose to be under the protection of the Sovjet union". But when this sort of talk is from a country you imagine you share values with... Also, it is coming from a man who appears to be quite young. Not from some old geezer stuck in ancient history. It is not something to hate Japan for, of course. The whole idea that people in a country are responsible for what their grandparents did is laughable. Denying historical events for the sake of nationalistic pride is something else.