JFSOCC

Trashman and Aluminiumtrioxid, could you both stop your childish attacks on eachother and get back to actually arguing your points. Trashman, I'm no native speaker either, but I have a great ally, it's the Firefox English dictionary plug-in, turn it on in any field you can type text in, and voilá. I do think you guys demonstrate well that you do not need cultural bias, racism, sexism, or bigotry to have conflict and be **** to another.

The Deregulators The Deregulators are all about ensuring individual freedoms, especially those which affects themselves. They are against any type of modesty laws or moralising in law. The Deregulators are a group largely comprising of Vallian nobility, colloquially known as the cigar club. One of their members has his own brand of cigars and only members of this club have them. This is how they know each other, but mostly it's to be exclusive. The Deregulators are without exception men of influence and power, by far most have come into that power through inheritance, and old nobility comprises a large part of the membership. Membership is invitation only, but generally open to anyone who "shows promise". IE anyone with influence willing to work with the Deregulators to further their goal of a liberal Utopia. If there is something illegal, which might profit them or which they would like to have, be it hallucinogenic mushrooms, the right to own slaves, the ability to sell weapons to children, nearly extinct animals for their menagerie, the deregulators all put it on the onus of "freedom of choice" and "personal responsibility" While some are selfish children, some are idealistic men and women who truly believe that deregulation leads to more and better chances for self-determination, something which is well respected in the cigar club. You can dress how you want, you can walk around naked if you care to, you are free to decide who you choose to associate with, all these are also enshrined rights for the deregulators. Because of their opposition to moralising law, they are generally not seen as friends of religion, although some religions are better tolerated than others. Their colonial Headquarters is in a side building of the Horticulturists HQ, where some of them can usually be found enjoying their exclusive brand of cigars. Some of their members might have work for those who have a reputation for discretion, the player might be asked to threaten lawmakers, destroy a temple and kill all clergy, save someone from prison or even the gallows who was to be executed for a moralist reason, or help smuggle illegal goods through customs, bribe customs officials. Players with a different reputation might be asked to help in a different way, but will never be considered for membership. Membership benefits include access to illegal materials, a big "old boy" network, investment in any business venture the player might wish to construct, and powerful allies. Not to mention some fine cigars. While unknown to the deregulators, crime syndicates are taking notice, and considering aligning themselves with the derulators, as are trade organisations dealing with more questionable goods.

I think think it's difficult to implement at all, if you can have obstacles programmed (like walls) you can make PC's act like movable walls for gameplay purposes. I don't see that being too difficult to implement

I'm on the fence, I like the problems I face to be different from every day drudgery. I like multi-culturalism and equal opportunity. That doesn't mean the world has to be a fair and equal utopia. just, if you have bigotry,, have it be slightly different. maybe some people hate godlike perhaps those who have strong souls have those who hate them too. Mostly I think it would be fantastic to see religious conflict.

I imagine there are points in a person's life where he or she is confronted with their views or other views, a low point in which they might question their beliefs. these are moments when you could influence a characters growth, outside that, not so much.

I like Mongolian throat singing...

Saints beetle Saints beetles are friendly creatures as long as you avoid them. Although they might just be where you need to be. Orange striped with blue dots, the saints beetle is a small creature, about the size of two thumbs side by side. Easily missed and easily crushed underfoot. It has no real defence and few HP. They live in groups of about 5-25 beetles. Found in forests and open caves, the problem about the saints beetle is revenge Saints beetles are fairly harmless creatures, peaceable, but they have the Protection of one of the gods with a sense of humour. If you aggro a saints beetle group (staying within range for more than 2 minutes or damage any one of them) they will eventually sting you. this does hardly any damage, but ignores armour completely. Eventually the 1hp hits will make you want to swat them. bad idea. Killing a Saints beetle will not only release their poisonous blood, which will drain 1hp per second for 5 minutes straight (roll a save to ignore damage) but, for every Saints beetle killed there is a % chance you will summon a "Beetle saint" A shadow beetle the size of a man, takes no physical damage, and deals armour ignoring piercing damage. Its first attack is always a successful critical hit (sneak attack) and has a life draining aura. (-1hp per second) And every 30 seconds, it spawns a saints beetle. Once killed it will evaporate with a sound like gas being sucked out of an airlock, it will spawn 10-20 (peaceable) saints beetles. It drops no loot. (else you could farm it)

The Shawshank Redemption introduced me to Figaro's Wedding, which is an awesome opera

That's a shame, this man talks about a low-tech low cost and effective solution. If you want to have laser eye surgery these days, it will cost you about 500 bucks per eye If you wanted to have laser eye surgery 15 years ago, it would have cost you about 20.000 bucks. But the only reason the cost went down is because we invested in it. if you're anti idiot, then you should be anti-short term thinking, which is what you're doing by dismissing these technologies. Of course it will be expensive at first. Prototyping costs money. then you're understanding is flawed, we got the means to address the issue now. THAT's the tragedy.

too late to edit now, but point taken. Yet. that's because like all new technology it needs investment and development. I have no doubt that green power will be cheap power in the future, but only if we invest. which brings me to: The Hoover Damn, and Hoover jobs were during economic crisis, the second world war, was during economic crisis. Only by investing (and yes, inflation) despite the economic woes, did the US break out of the depression into economic boom. Now is an excellent time to fix some problems which have been sapping that nation's strength for a while now. Actually that's what I am saying. It's not going to happen at that level, it needs to happen at government level. Still, society changes one person at a time. (or rather, one generation at a time.) And it doesn't harm to help bring that about. I think the biggest problem right now is that most people do not have a fair choice between being environmentally friendly or not, because it's something you can only do if you are a dedicated hippy, or rich. I believe that when people do have that choice, (and that means the choice has to be fair) they will choose for the "green" option. But in order to make that choice viable, yes, you need... investment. I wonder, did you check out that video? just curious.

Roadmap? Well, I don't know. I can give you the points of attention which I think are check-boxes on the list to improvement. I don't exactly know how we'd get there. To start; Unlike many, I believe there is some power in the United Nations. International legislation concerning fishing, farming and womens rights would be important. But these are worth nothing without enforcement. But I think the biggest change should be how much we invest in renewable energy technology. The amount the US government (and sadly, governments around the world) spend on this is but a FRACTION (and I'm not even kidding) of the amount paid for energy subsidies for oil companies. Mind you, many renewable technologies are fairly low-tech (solar panels excluded) like gas and heat from fecal fermentation. (septic tanks!) wave power, water wheels, (although that would be DC, not AC) in Rio de Janeiro there's a power plant which extracts heat from buried garbage dumps which are slowly fermenting; and Dams. (although those have other environmental issues) Some geological sites have potential for exploitation, hot springs, geisers, volcanoes, but we would need to further develop technology to utilize this. I actually don't like wind power, it's inefficient, ugly, and kills birds, but even there, there are places where they can be used. Biofuel is NOT a solution, it takes more energy to make than it delivers, and in order to make it you have to set aside vast tracts of land for monoculture which you won't be able to use for anything else, like food production. We can't quickly stop using oil, even I am not that naive, but we can reduce our use, use it more efficiently. Cars in the US are tragically wasteful. European cars have much better fuel economy. This happened because fuel prices in Europe are much higher. The US has lived on an OIL glut and never had to develop energy efficient architecture. Developed countries should invest in infrastructure: Public transportation is a joke in the US. (which is not strange when you let car companies buy up city transportation companies and then deliberately ruin them to end competition) So Buses, trams, trains, mag-lev (seriously, why doesn't the US have this! even CHINA has mag-lev rail) Not only is investing in infrastructure more energy efficient, it is good for the economy. Now, in the economic crisis, is an excellent time to do this, since such a project would create a lot of work. No matter how much more environmentally friendly we'd live, we need less people on the planet. Now I'm not a genocidal maniac (outside of computer games) so I won't argue for war, disease and the like. (it would be a drop in the bucket anyway) International pressure to improve womens rights, sex-ed, condoms, legalised abortion, cheap contraceptives etc are a start. But yes, for a while we'll have a legacy problem with overpopulation. I also think there is a role for government in this, children should be learning about these things and their options around their 12th. Mind you that having less people also increases democratic power. (if one representative represents 100.000 people that is less democratic than if he represents 10.000 people.) Often children in large families have less chances in life to thrive. So less people will most likely increase wealth, and health per person. It'd be a more pleasant world to live in for everyone. And you'll have to kill no-one to get there. Another thing we can do is store carbon. Nature is the biggest carbon storage site on the planet. Every tree is a big carbon dump. Since about 40% of our planet's land surface is desert, we have a lot we can win there. Not only will this benefit the productivity of the land, create liveable space, equalise temperatures (deserts have greater extremes), provide a habitat for species under pressure, it will also help create fresh water (and millions have to do without, worldwide) and it will, most importantly, store carbon from the atmosphere. not to mention it provides us with oxygen rich environments. Reclaiming desert is an expensive and difficult process, not to mention fairly energy intensive. The benefits are great, but the investment is also great. Luckily I've heard about some successes with fairly low tech solutions like cattle fertilisation to create grasslands ---- Because we don't have international unity in this, it falls to individual governments to do this. This is why Kyoto failed, why Copenhagen did nothing, and why Rio failed. I put no trust in these, much to my dismay. However, when governments take this on, and show their moderate successes, they will inspire other nations to do the same. Germany is on the right track, Japan is on the right track. Brazil is fast going the wrong way, but is experiencing economic boom at the cost of their environment. Same goes for China. I think India is experiencing an enlightenment period and I see a lot of good coming from there. I do think the US COULD take up an exemplary role, but not as long as the nation stays as politically divided as it is. I do think the major steps are going to be at government level. At individual level all you can do is choose from what's available, and I certainly begrudge no man or woman the freedom to live a comfortable life. Of course we're going to leave the TV on sometimes, of course we're not going to put on another sweater rather than change the thermostat. I think it's naive to be moralistic about these things because it is pointless. You CAN however, choose. But choice is only useful if you're well enough informed, and if options are available. You can rage all you want against oil companies, or coal plants, but if they are the only ones on the market, you don't really have a choice. You can rage all against fuel inefficient cars, but if the Import tax on more efficient cars is so high, of course you're going to "Buy American" There are things you can do at a personal level though. You can choose not to have many children, to wait until you're a bit older with them. You can choose to buy energy efficient cars, use public transportation or carpool. You can choose not to eat fruit out of season, you can vote with your wallet. On your own you're not going to change the environment, but that's not the point, society changes by the person, it has to start somewhere. I hope that makes sense. tl;dr: international legislation and enforcement; invest in renewables; invest in infrastructure; deal with overpopulation; education; reclaim deserts; make examples out of successes; fair choice. I believe that's a largely non-coercive list of steps we can take. Edit: And EVEN IF there'd be a global leftist 'warmist' climate conspiracy, these would be things which would improve the world for everyone, regardless.

no no and yes respectively

me turning down a quest? You bet it is hard.

You tell that to my Ex girlfriend, who works with experimental quantum computers.

I suppose I'm more passionate about this subject than anything else, because it's near and dear to me. It's also one of the few subjects I claim to know something about beyond mere opinion. We've discussed things before and I generally enjoy your posts even though it's mostly humour with a barb. But on this topic, you won't see me stay quiet. Ever.

I'll admit, I pick women characters in games because, hey, why not? If I have to look at my character the whole time, I'd rather have a good looking woman to look at than a gritty short bearded brown haired rugged man. Blegh. So I have a high enjoyment tolerance for naked armour. That said, there are other ways to make characters Aesthetically pleasing without making them look like dress-up dolls.

I saw an interview with JJ on daily show yesterday which did not inspire any confidence. He want sto cut out the philosophical underpinnings of Star Wars. That's pretty much the best thing about star wars. Not to mention I ****ing hate his tv show revolution. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/exclusive---j-j--abrams-extended-interview-pt--1

sure rape star wars even further.

You don't seem to understand what shale oil and gas mean. Shale is the source rock for oil. Before we could only get oil that seeped out of shale over millions of years and then got trapped in some other structure. Now we can actually go to the source and get it directly from there. There are vast, almost unlimited amounts of shale oil and gas all over the world. That is why the outdated curve you linked turned in the other direction, and US is now expected to be energy independent in just a few years, something I never thought would happen. As far as nuclear power I'm for it too, but unfortunately I just read an article I can't find anymore that says that nuclear energy is just way too expensive compared to the cheap natural gas, so the prospects for it are once again grim. Whatever happened to all those modular designs that were supposed to revolutionize it? As far as population growth, industrialized countries actually have a problem with shrinking population, not overpopulation. If anything Westerners should have more children, not fewer. More generally, you simply can not project in a straight line like that professor was doing. There are technological breakthroughs and cultural paradigm shifts which completely change the equations every few decades. I read this and heaved a big sigh. Alright, let's do this one by one, shall we? 1. Bull****. unlimited fuels would have crashed the oil prices, and yet they're higher than ever. 2. That slight uptick at the end of the curve is well within expectations, like the finding of a new well, but it won't stop the trend. If you'd watched the video (which I noticed yesterday I've posted twice in this thread) you'd have actually accounted for it 3. US energy independent in a few years? HAHAHAHA, so I guess those expensive wars in resource rich countries were for the actual reasons stated, right, bringing democracy (ignoring the many other oil-less dictatorships around the world)and findign weapons of mass destruction. Energy companies always promise the moon, otherwise they'd never get permission to drill in nature reserves and the like. Don't believe everything you hear. 4. Nuclear power is expensive, compared to gas, it's also much less polluting, even so, it's hardly the best solution. 5. Yes, western countries have population decline, the important exception is the United States, with it's nuclear family values, anti-abortion protests and religious nutcases has a birthrate which only with the economic crisis has fallen below it's shocking highs. But since we have about 3 times the population in the world that we did in the 50's of the last century, and because the world is not just the western world, your point is moot. Although it does say something against strict immigration policies, does it not!? 6. Technological breakthroughs can't be relied on, and can't be predicted. the Technologists as I like to call them, want to solve world hunger with bio-tech, bypassing that if we don't solve the underlying problem of growth, that it will just increase the amount of stress the world will get. The Green revolution was fantastic, but it also helped increase the world population exponentially.

But at least I won't have it anymore, muhahahaha!

You can educate. Yes, the Khmer Rouge tried that too. Seriously, you are well-intentioned (of that I have no doubt) but woefully misguided. The only way you will ever get these things to work is to make them profitable. Khmer rouge? Did you just Godwin this thread? Seriously enough with the hyperbole. Khmer rouge, by the way, was all about destroying intellectualism. They sent teachers and artists to prison gulags or killed them outright, I'd say that's rather the OPPOSITE of education. Get your facts straight.

You can educate, besides I happily "enforce" womens rights. My list is largely non-coercive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/rhinos-mozambique-extinct_n_3200840.html?ir=Green

For all it's flaws DA:O had some interesting things worth looking at. I liked the "tactics" slots you could program your NPC AI in.