Elerond

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning Which isn't pro....He wants to use use his Artificial Intelligences to control.... He believes that those machines are gods, or at least close to god than anything can come and they are only things that keep world running as it is. For him they are center of religion, center of everything that he believes in. So I would argue that he is clearly pro religion. Close to gods isn't believing in gods. Believing they have immense power, isn't believing they're gods. He knows they're simply products of his science. You don't necessary need gods in religion. "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence"". Religion usually involves belief in supernatural forces, especially gods that control or people and who people are accountable.

It's hardly that clear-cut, it rather depends on how you define science. Philosophy certainly isn't an empirical enterprise and does not study, or generate knowledge of, the world around us. At the very least that puts it in a very different category than the (other) branches of science. Excepting perhaps the so-called 'formal sciences' like mathematics, but for the same reason I would not consider those branches of science either. They're just very different things, and there is no clear unifying reason to lump them in together. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the (empirical) sciences branched out from philosophy. There didn't used to be a very clear distinction between the two activities, they rather bled together and were generally engaged in by the same people. It seems more accurate to say that they branched off from each other, developing and evolving into the forms they have now. Philosophy has undergone quite an evolution of its own, as an activity it is vastly removed from the likes of Descartes and Kant, let alone the ancient Greeks. The Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition at any rate, who knows what the Continentals are ever on about (and let us not deign to speak of Eastern "philosophy"). Philosophy is mostly theoretical science, where people study things by theoretical research methods, although there is also empiric research methods (Aristotle, Greek philosopher was big advocate of empiric research and it is seen as his legacy that empiric research focused branches of science were born). But of course we also have theoretical physics and similar branches in empiric research focuses on sciences that focus mostly in theoretical research.

French people didn't like that tourists took pictures of them, and then other French people come in defense of tourist and said that tourists have right to took those pictures of those other French people and then these two groups of French people started to fight and then more French people showed up armed with harpoons and hatchets and then people got injured. Typical French behavior.

You should check your psychology, social psychology, behavioral science and philosophy books for example, before you make such claims. While the whole "it's all subjective" line is taking it rather too far in the other direction, he is correct in saying that science does not do morality. Philosophy does, but that's not really a branch of science as such. Even if it was, as (almost) any philosopher would be happy to point out, there is a big divide between the descriptive (which science principally concerns itself with) and the normative (the domain of ethics, aesthetics, etc.) that cannot really be bridged; you can't prove an 'ought' from an 'is'. Which isn't to say that the normative is all just subjective and mere opinion (in the pejorative sense), nor even that it cannot be objective in a more fundamental sense; the latter is not a view I would subscribe to, but it's been argued by plenty of influential philosophers (though not so many now, I'd say). But conversely the objectivity of the descriptive, of 'the truth' is rather problematic as well, so in practice it seems more sensible to put the whole subjective vs objective dichotomy aside anyway, and focus on reasoned argument instead. Philosophy is branch of science, first branch actually, other branches like physics, biology, psychology etc. have branched out from philosophy.

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning Which isn't pro....He wants to use use his Artificial Intelligences to control.... He believes that those machines are gods, or at least close to god than anything can come and they are only things that keep world running as it is. For him they are center of religion, center of everything that he believes in. So I would argue that he is clearly pro religion.

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning it.

You should check your psychology, social psychology, behavioral science and philosophy books for example, before you make such claims.

In my understanding they are allowed to use profanities as much they want, but they have opted out from using them because they want as big audience as possible. Also Dark Matter and Killjoys are Canadian shows, so they may get special privileges.

It seems that Incest is way to go in CW's version of DC universe

Full view picture of that Omaha thing. But it seems that 50 people thing (meaning that there was only 50 people there overall) has become fact that can't be overrode by anything for some people in internet (not here but for example in comment sections of articles about the thing)

Without seeing their bank statements I of course can't say for sure that they don't use money from backers to make those ports, but they made publishing contracts for those ports and I don't see any financial reasons to give control over those ports to publishing companies if said companies don't pay for them to make said ports. In scenario where those ports are paid by publishers, which is the most likely scenario because reasons that I mentioned above, they don't waste any money to make those ports, because they would not have that money if they didn't make said ports. Effects on PC version is of course difficult to estimate (although in case of Wasteland 2 there probably was none, because they had to port game to new engine and change how its systems work to make it possible that it works on consoles and backers received this new version of W2 addition to original version). In case of TToN it is harder to say if they planned console version from beginning or after their signing contract with Techland. But any case TToN is simpler to port to consoles than what Wasteland 2 was because it is already made for Unity 5, which is cross platform engine that is able to compile projects so that they run on PS4 and XB1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMQ4JnmyZRg http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/crowd-at-hillary-clinton-s-omaha-rally-exceeded-with-overflow/article_0c8bc1b0-5946-11e6-abf7-6f6f26e598bf.html Crowd at Hillary Clinton's Omaha rally exceeded 3,300 with overflow Can't say how many people there was really in Clinton's Omaha rally, but I think 50 people maybe bit underestimating actual number.

VGChartz lists that D:OS sold about 300k copies on consoles most on PS4 and that Wasteland 2 sold about 130k copies on consoles. VGChartz numbers of course aren't always that accurate and they don't list digital sales (which are significantly higher on PS4 and XB1 than they were on previous generation's consoles).

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it. By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure. Also, Fargo in 2013: GG. Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.

Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game. The concept is so finely tuned, that the final design would be easy to imagine. I have not filled in each and every small detail, but doing so would be like colouring in a picture. Think of it as a masterpiece; it's a work of art, and it's very influential. You haven't done anything that comes even close to that. It is even hard to tell what is your actual concept for the game as whole. There is general sense of idea like red house, but that is quite little to go forward in building actual house.

Concepts help greatly in creating design, but point was that you tittled this thread as "Design for Final Fantasy Style Game", but you offered only bit detailed concept of an idea for a game.

That isn't design, but a bit detailed concept of an idea. To make that to actual design one needs still put probably hundreds of hours in.

Suicide Squad was watchable movie, I would rank it fresh instead of rotten. I liked how Margot Robbie portrayed Harley Quinn, even though movie didn't do best job in explaining her character. But Robbie's performance is stellar Will Smith did good job as Deadshot even though I found character to be bit boring. Action sequences relied too heavily people standing still and shooting CGI monsters to them to be exciting. But overall tone of movie is funny, which is improvement to super seriousness of BvS. Sadly other members of Suicide Squad are left quite unfleshed. Villain is sadly again generic, they would have made movie much more interesting if Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), person who assembles the squad , had been the villain of the story.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/suicide-squad-review This is particularly harsh "Suicide Squad is bad. Not fun bad. Not redeemable bad. Not the kind of bad that is the unfortunate result of artists honorably striving for something ambitious and falling short. Suicide Squad is just bad. It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It’s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soupçon of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship. But, perhaps worst of all, Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something."

Going to see Suicide Squad tomorrow, hopefully it isn't as bad as reviews say it is.

Hypocrisy indeed... better strike now since we all know that Assad has stockpiles of WMD's! (I wonder if anyone is going to buy that argument a second time?) That speech was after WMD (chemical weapon, rockets containing sarin) were provably used in Ghouta, Syria against civilian population. Although it has been under disputation was strike done by Assad's regime or opposition, but eventually Assad's regime eventually decided to give up their chemical weapons to be destroyed.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like. When our discussion was initially about Hillary and winds up being about how I should vote third party, that speaks volumes about her. Never in the past has it been so difficult to defend the two major party candidates to the point such a discussion reliably results in someone conceding that third parties are the answer. You asked positive redeemable qualities about her I listed some, you dismissed them as worthless to you, so I asked if you have reason to vote Trump and you indicate that you aren't any more willing to vote for him and you think that both Clinton and Trump have done bad job to explain why you should vote them, so there really isn't any other logical conclusion than that you should look for third party candidate that you think is worth of your vote.

I've actually seen her long political career argued as a point against her, because you can bet with a fair degree of certainty that she had some involvement in many of the current portions of government and legislation that people take issue with. Yes it can used against her, same is true for all career politicians. But for some people it is also positive trait. Beg your pardon, but this whole argument is rather worthless for me and for many others that are practically asking to be convinced to vote for Hillary. One moment the argument is "because Trump is bad," which fails to objectively review the proposed alternative at all, the next argument is "some people would like the status quo." I'm not some people, and the status quo is quite literally in danger of killing us, either economically or on a global scale if we severely underestimate the threats of climate change. What are your arguments then for voting Trump? That's completely besides the point, and that is exactly the problem with this election: both candidates point the finger at one another and argue why that other candidate shouldn't be elected. If I own a restaurant and I need a new manager for the dayshift, then two applicants come in and can't show any meaningful credentials or past work experience referrals, but they gladly spend the entire interview telling me how the person that came before/after them is a coke addict and a registered sex offender, guess what I'm doing? I'm considering maybe the dayshift would be better off on autopilot, or maybe I'll find the time to do it myself. Now you may sit here and argue for the sake of the analogy, these are the only two applicants and I'm desperate for a manager, but that is besides the point: you should be capable of motivating people to leave their own homes, take time out of their day and cast a vote for you. That neither Trump nor Hillary can manage anything beyond "I'm not the other guy" as justification...? They may as well flip a god damned coin on election day, because neither are proving themselves competent in ANY capacity, and who wins is really gonna come down to which party is feeling less suicidal on election day. Then you have your answer, look for third party candidate that actually offers you something that you like.

Neither understands Putin, so I would not bet on good deal in either case. Clinton - Obama dynasty

Elerond how are things in Finland? Have you guys had anymore issue around the immigrants ? There hasn't been notable issues.