JFSOCC

And again I point out that instead of telling people how stupid they are, explaining to them why the evidence is right makes more sense. If you're not willing to educate people who disagree with you...you're wasting your time yelling at them. I don't want to foul more words at this. But I've been trying to explain some of the evidence, I guess I'm not so good at communicating what to me seems rather obvious and in your face. I believe I've provided some convincing arguments and directed to where you could find more. EDIT - to explain why someone might feel this way - There is money in alarmism. Alarmist reactions tends to flood money into fields. Therefore being an alarmist can get you money. But you can't sincerely believe that more than 90% of all the researchers in this field are alarmist. That's just not true. Science does not care for politics. well, political science does, I guess. science is about finding the truth. Whether that would fit an ideology or not. This would be averaged out by dissent. In the end, false beliefs won't last. So far there has been only minor dissent, and most notably not from scientists in the fields pertaining to climate science. While it's true that my politics lean to the left, I sincerely believe that this should not at all be tied to politics. it's simple science fact. There's climate deniers on both sides of the political spectrum, though I suppose there might be more on one side than the other. The fact that some people make this political is telling however. So I have to play nice to everyone, despite them spouting nonsense and propagating fallacy?I guess I could have been nicer, that doesn't mean I have to respect bull****, however.

came here to say that. If you're going to put them in, at least give us some variety, and we don't need to hear them all the time.

Good story (Makes you think, is believable, character driven, consistent world and narrative) Engaging game-play (Diversity, little or no hand-holding, empowers the player, intuitive and responsive controls) Unforced (Pacing, choice, no invisible walls) Great visuals (not the same as graphics) and sound. (Distinct art style, colourful, diverse, detailed) Supports a community (Moddable, centralised information -wiki;filesite;forums) Polished. (little to no bugs, exploits, forced cutscenes, pathing issues, responsive, attention to little details)

Didn't know you swung that way, sailor. I've got some friends you can meet up with if that's your thing. The difference is just like crossbows versus bows. One requires skill and training to use on the order of months to years, the other can be given to any random person and used somewhat effectively. Back in the day, an army of English longbowmen were the superior of most ranged units in combat. But training up and arming them was far less cost effective than making a crossbow, handing it to some schmuck, and drafting him into service for king and country. My money's still on the guy with the sling if there's terrain to abuse. Plus handguns run out of ammunition, slings basically use whatever's fist sized or smaller that happens to be laying about. Are you on drugs or just retarded? Not that I really care, just asking out of curiosity. Don't believe me, look it up. Most sites quote the foot range, where 50 feet is about 15m. However books in your library and your local gun club can verify this approximate range too. That is, if research doesn't hurt you too much. Addendum: I admit to laziness and didn't go out of my way to find an example to support swords vs. staves, but someone else provided a "this is how polearms work" video elsewhere and off of that was a spear vs. sword video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O8RWLxlzTiM A staff is used much like a spear, except poking with it is non-lethal. A hunk of wood to the face is still enough to knock you on your ass though. In the video, the swordsman gets a few point wins, but by and large the significant reach advantage the spear has wins most of the engagements. And this is the european style of spear fighting, some asian martial arts focus on parry/riposte combat styles while others teach fast, broad swings in a circular motion and sudden stabs from that momentum to keep your foes at bay. I will always enjoy youtube videos of martial arts. I think this video also demonstrates quite well how important reach is. (in RL, not sure about the game)

I really don't like random encounters at all. Whenever I'm travelling, there's a good chance I'm on my way to do something. a random encounter breaks the flow of my game by imposing a hurdle to me for no other reason than to keep me busy. Unless somehow a questline can be derived from the encounter (actually one of the very few things I think DA:O did well) then I suppose there is a greater purpose to it. otherwise they are bothersome distractions that keep me from what I want to do, and waste my time.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy? Yes, and Climategate proves it. I can't even begin to expain how stupid that is. You are basically saying that the VAST MAJORITY of ALL scientists in relevant fields, IN THE WORLD are conspiring so that you have to pay more taxes. I can't even express how retarded I think that thought is. it's utter bull****. it's an extremely myopic view. And that's the real problem. The real problem is that there is a significant amount of people, like yourself, that will try to fit anything into a narrative that they prefer. Not only does the media have a liberal bias, but clearly so does science. it's absolute nonsense. What possible reason do thousands, no tens of thousands of scientists have, to all be part of this large scheme to deceive you? Science doesn't care about politics, it is going to be true whether or not it is pleasant. A scientist is not going to lose his job for bringing good news or bad. a scientist is only really at risk of losing his job for deliberately not telling the truth. So either there is this incredible conspiracy going on, including most of the world scientists, (except for this brave minority group out to protect your interests) or the vast majority of published and peer reviewed scientists are incompetent. I want you to think about that for a moment. please, please come to the realisation how ridiculous this is. I think the problem with accepting man-made global warming (because the globe is warming, even if localised effects might mean colder temperatures, this still come from a warmer planet on the whole) is that there is much evidence that if you do not understand the science, seem counter-intuitive. People see a cold spell in the US in 2011 and go "well so much for global warming" despite this being exactly because of global warming. And look I'm trying to be respectful, I am, I promise. But you got to understand how frustrating it is to have a vocal minority stand in the way of necessary policy (yes, necessary, not nice, but necessary) because there exists a fear of having to give up on living how we always have lived. There seems to be a mentality of "Ignore it, maybe it will go away" and while we dawdle and debate something which really isn't in dispute any more, we're cruising towards destruction, depletion of resources, economical devastation, societal collapse and environmental collapse. Luckily many governments ARE beginning to do things about it. Unfortunately, as stated by David Attenborough, the United States is lagging behind, and while Americans complain about all time high gas prices fail to realise that in Europe we still pay per litre what they pay per gallon. (4.52 litre) It's unpopular because it requires the US to invest in new infrastructure, to change its habits, and to accept that their current held beliefs don't fit reality, which is never easy to admit. But it was no less so in Germany, or France, or Japan or South Korea, or Brazil, yet all of those nations are moving towards a more ecologically friendly infrastructure, because they realise its necessity. I'll say it once more and clearly so I won't have to say it again. (man-made) Climate Change deniers are standing in the way of essential progress. They base their argument on wishful thinking, fringe science, and misinterpretation of the data. You are wrong, both scientifically, and ethically.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row. Half truths and junk science typical of the warmists. http://abcnews.go.co...d=119847&page=1 "Warmist?" hah.Look congrats on the recessess of google you've managed to find a site that says something different than all the rest. Fact is there is consensus. I cannot stress this enough. You guys are so desperate for this not to be true that you've got your head stuck up your own ass. I'm clearly not going to convince you with facts and figures. You'll only believe me when god descends from heaven and tells you so himself or something. A few extra El Niño years in a period might not prove a change in trends, but we're talking about more than just a few. In 10 years time, when there is STILL an El Niño every 2 years on average, maybe then you'll believe me. I'm getting sick and tired of the "too soon to tell" mentality. that would work if you had a single piece of evidence standing on it's own. But we have a large, no, humongous body of evidence that Global warming is real, AND man-made. Btw, Even your own link clearly states : About the 100 million years comment. So, it's not going to be 100 million years on the dot. but the fact is that by then the sun will be so hot that most water will have evaporated. I think we can establish from this that there will be no chance for intelligent life.

You know, I believe there is quite a clear consensus here.

I voted BG and BG2 but really I want PE to stand on it's own.

I don't even need to know if a dialogue option I use is a bluff or an intimidate. I will pick the option that I think is best, I don't need the knowledge of what attribute or skill it is linked to.

it took the earth between 11 and 18 million years to recover from the devonian extinction. Our planet has 100 million years left before it becomes uninhabitable for all but the most basic species. that means that a mass extinction event (which technically, is already begun) of greater magnitude than the all of the others (which is likely) is going to plunge the earth into a near permanent chaos. Earth won't recover for 11 million years, at least. think on that.

which still doesn't make this impossible. but limited to the wealthier homes

I think if you are wise enough, smart enough and have enough in intimidate or bluff, you should get these options, and they might even be insta-win (though I prefer that that isn't an assumption you can make) But by not seeing any tags, you role-play your decision. You feel this option is better? good, go for it. but do it because it is your own decision, not because meta-game information told you it was a special option. The options would still be available if you met the prerequisites, and if you have a little reading comprehension you'll figure out how it sounds. But you won't be tempted away from using different dialogue, because you know it's a "special" option. Both can be intimidate. Intimidation doesn't require you to be all shouty and angry, on the contrary, the best intimidation is when you present it calmly, with others around them perhaps not even picking up on the fact that you have just threatened their friend, perhaps even making them think you're actually being really friendly! Bluffing can be done easily by pretending to be all angry and flustered but also calmly if the person is good at it. So both can be both in short. But you knew which option was which. so clearly it can be made apparent without tags.

what I wouldn't want to see is what they did in Dragon Age Origins, where after you decided to let the ashes of some saint to become a pilgrimage location, the first time you'd go into a city two people (both unironically tagged "gossip") go "Did you hear, they found andraste's ashes!" that feels incredibly forced.

I'll give you two options, you can decide which is bluff and which is intimidate. Get back on topic or I swear I will have this thread locked! By all means, continue derailing this thread, when it is locked, it's not going to be me who is banned. (I don't actually mind you guys going off-topic, since it's still related to the topic) Anyway, I think it is obvious enough to recognise which is which without needing tags, don't you?

George Lucas was the biggest flip-flopper of all time, he's held all positions in all debates at least twice. and whenever he speaks he speaks about what he "Always" wanted or "Always" thought. even though he was just making **** up on the fly.

The army museum in Delft here in the Netherlands has an exquisite collection of 17th century guns, and they are all quite beautiful, worked with ivory and mother of pearl, inlaid with different kinds of wood. They have part of their collection online: http://www.collectie...on/i006253.html Do browse their collection if you can, the first page doesn't have the best examples. Edit: http://afbeeldingen.collectie.legermuseum.nl/wwwopac.exe?thumbnail=\\buffel\images$\\PM\images\D012\018870.jpg small example.

I recently saw Salmon fishing in the Yemen, pretty good, even if it is a romantic comedy. Ewan McGregor's range keeps impressing me more and more.

Here's an idea: make the stronghold extremely moddable. let the community be able to design and add stuff to it, stuff they can import into the game if they so please.

believable is the keyword. sometimes that requires a bit of realism, sometimes it doesn't. I heard the term "internally consistent" used in the map thread and I thought that was beautifully put.

Health bars go up, damage and attack scores must go up, xp bars must grow, enemy health must go down, attributes are better when they're high. Armor doesn't use thac0 because that's counter-intuitive when the rest of the scores need to be high. Maybe it's a bit of an oversimplification, but I have had only marginal difficulty figuring out good builds, mostly they weren't so good, but I had no idea so they felt fine.

I think it's mostly indirect responses that would make the difference. If peole immediately respond you'll feel it's scripted, but if something comes back to you later, it feels much more natural.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row. and we know this for certain because we can date core samples accurately and these are different for el Niño years. More frequent and more powerful hurricanes are also statistical evidence. Every year you're confronted. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/hurricanefrequency.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#Number_of_tropical_storms_and_hurricanes_per_season I heard someone say that there is no consensus amongst scientists, that is simply not true. let me say that again, that is a LIE. consensus exists and only a few fringe scientists doubt it. And even then they don;t doubt global warming, they doubt if it's human caused. Offering explanations which have so far been largely debunked such as solar cycles.

LSD spiked Absinthe?

on the plus side, maybe, just maybe someone gets to remake the prequels and do them right this time.