Pidesco

Moved to the appropriate forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...antum_mechanics

1. Gimme Honest Hearts. 2. Got the game. 3. My backlog is large enough.

Everyone that posts performance numbers should post specs as well. And screen resolution as well.

you need more screwdrivers than with a desktop PC, but yes it should be possible.

My feet are handsome, modelling worthy pieces of divine sculpture, thankyouverymuch.

Isn't Tigs' graphics card a discrete GPU?

If you can, upgrade your GPU. It should make some difference in performance with games in general.

The distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/c seconds. My shoe size is a 43(10

Specs?

A scientist not using metric is, quite frankly, incredible. The problem wasn't one using imperial and the other one using metric, the problem was a scientist using imperial at all.

The combat, at least, is much improved over the first game, right? Because the original combat was terrible. When you have played more say something about mixing and matching of stances.

Tell us about that. Now.

I love custom character creation, but it is not a must have, these days, nor is it devolving from current RPGs. It really depends on what the game is specifically designed for.

Regarding those inventory screens, the items seem sorted to me. All the swords are together, all the guns are together, and I'm guessing the clothes that are separated, are separated by character. So the clothes next to the guns, for example, may be Katarina's clothes

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this. Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe. In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things. No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic. ok.

My Collector's Edition has been dispatched!

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this. Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe. In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.

Way off-topic posts do not increase you post count.

I want to see that experiment. I don't think that's possible. Also I don't understand the first sentence of the article, there's no either/or between time being a dimension and being "the numerical order of material change".

There is no way for one person to determine whether his own self-awareness is true or false. So there is no other choice but to accept your self-awareness as true.

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview. My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

I'd need to read the original article but, it seems to me they are arguing over semantics. That time is the order of events seems to me tautological and, in any case, doesn't go against the notion of time as a 4th dimension.

Indeed it does.

Um, in what way was his statement silly? His statement: "Also, Einstein thought gravity was a constant, which is complete hogwash. Mass is just a variable as everything else." First, his statement implies that the modern possibility of gravity not being constant is due to the variability of mass. This is not true and does not make sense. Secondly, even considering the hypothesis of the gravitational constant depending on the particles involved, it's still a theory that hasn't been experimentally verified and so, as such, does not turn the notion of the gravitational constant being, well, constant, into "complete hogwash."