Valsuelm

The chances of the police implicating themselves of brutality or murder in the final report is lower than the chance of rain tomorrow in the Sahara.

40 years ago today, The Eagles scored their first #1 on the Billboard charts with this song: from the same album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGweOFqapU

This song came to mind:

Best sci-fi franchise movie hands down. There's a few sci fi movies out there that are on par. Blade Runner, Alien, Empire Strikes Back to name a few (all of which are made within a short time of each other, and imo the golden age of sci fi movies is late 70s/ early 80s, with 1982 being the singular year). But if I had to pick the best sci-fi movie of all time with a gun to my head, I'd choose The Wrath of Khan. (sorry Rachel) Thank you Deforest Kelly. Thank you Ricardo Montalbon. Thank you Leonary Nimoy. Thank you Bibi Bech. Thank you Paul Winfield. Thank you Merritt Butrick. Thank you James Doohan. Thank you for awesome performances. An awesome movie. And great memories. I hope you all are doing well in the realm of where no living man has gone before. Thank you as well, to those who made Star Trek what it was who are still alive. I hope you live long and prosperous lives.

Stumbled on a cover of this song earlier during a youtube adventure that began from a linked video on this forum. Then looked up the original. Awesome stuff imo. Looks like they're doing a US tour this summer. Think I'm going to make an effort to see them. The cover I found: and the video that lead to me finding the cover: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70007-the-weird-random-and-interesting-things-that-fit-nowhere-else-thread/page-7?do=findComment&comment=1574441

It's not near as simple as that. Corporations came down on multiple sides of the issue and millions of people saying they want net neutrality (myself being one of them), does not equate to millions of people wanting new regulations or a reclassification of what the internet is by the FCC. If it's not broken don't fix it very much applies here. Right now we really don't know exactly what we have. There's no tangible reason for anyone to cheer right now, or much of one to jeer, other than the process by which this all happened (which is deplorable, yet par for the course in DC). As usual, much of media is slanting the story in a direction without any concrete evidence. In this case pretty much just regurgitating the talking points the White House and the commissioners on the FCC that voted for it stated (also pretty much as usual). We're getting little to no actual objective reporting on this issue from any major media source. The regulations have not been made public yet. Which means that no one outside of the FCC knows much in regards to what exactly the regulations entail. Among other things, this tells me that what's in the apparent 300+ pages of new regulations is likely to be about as much about net neutrality as the Patriot Act is about being a patriot. I certainly hope I am wrong, and we'll find out in the not too distant future. Whatever the new regulations contain though, it's near guaranteed that there's going to be at least one big court battle about it all. Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, we probably just witnessed the end to ACT I with this vote, and now sit in suspense during intermission. ACT II will start with the revelation of what the regulations say.

Best video I've seen so far this year. Thanks.

While I agree that the 'net neutrality' rules as adopted by the FCC is likely a giant pile of BS (I haven't yet had a chance to read the 300+ pages of new regulations, though I'll be amazingly and pleasantly surprised if they are anything but BS), Morse code wasn't the preferred method of communication between most people in the 1930s in the US. The telephone was, and had been for decades at that point. By the 1930s the telephone was in very wide use, and in fact had been in millions of homes prior to 1910. In the 1930s Morse code was primarily used by aviators, the military, and telegram services at the time. The latter in many ways being the precursor to the fax machine, and also something that the Average Joe need not know (if one wanted to send a telegram one generally wrote the note out in plain language and it would be translated into Morse by a professional telegrapher), Morse code was invented in the 1830s, not the 1930s. Verizon is playing the propaganda game, and I guarantee you they are not on the side of good when it comes to the 'net neutrality' debate. The Communications of 1934 that Verizon is referring to isn't near as archaic as they are attempting to portray. Much of what that act encompasses and states is very relevant today, much of it was actually repealed and updated in the 1990s, and there have been other communication laws and regulations implemented and repealed through the years since 1934. Note that I'm not defending the Communications Act of 1934, as like so much else that FDR's administration was responsible for it is very arguably a massive overreach of Federal powers in many ways. I'm just pointing out that Verizon in no way is representing the situation factually, fairly, or objectively. They have a lot of skin in the game. Billions of dollars worth of skin.

Well we know from events like Iraq that occupational strategies just don't work, especially in the Middle East where you have this plethora of sectarian groups and historical tension between Sunni and Shia. So the West would have to back one political movement in Libya and support them politically, militarily and financially until they can govern the country effectively. Then the West can slowly disengage. But the objective needs to be the defeat of Islamic extremism in Libya, like neutralizing ISIS The real consideration around this approach is who is prepared to commit the resources to such a maelstrom of real issues that exist in Libya at the moment. So then the questions become " how relevant is ISIS in Libya to the sustainability of ISIS in Iraq\Syria " and "how important is the defeat of ISIS to the West" ? I would think its easier to just commit ground troops in Iraq and defeat ISIS utterly there and in Syria, then someone else can address ISIS in Libya. I imagine once ISIS is defeated in Iraq this will make their efforts in Libya less impressive or militarily challenging? This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention. The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant. The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about. No Western governments gave countries like Iraq and Libya the chance to govern their own countries and decide their own future. In many ways they messed up, don't blame the West for this And no the West isn't about " Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about " its about a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all citizens have a good quality of life You're like a granite wall in the face of logic, reason, historical and current realities. No, western governments did no such thing. They attacked Libya and Iraq unprovoked using lies to justify their actions and create flimsy casus belli. They toppled the very stable governments that were there and left both nations in ruin. Had they not done that ISIS wouldn't be anything we'd have heard about. Had they not done that a lot of people would still be alive. Had they not done that a lot of people who are alive wouldn't be suffering severe life altering injuries, the loss of loved ones, or the loss of the homes and other possessions. Hundreds of thousands are dead (and that's going by the lower estimates) between both nations, with many more horribly wounded. Thousands of US and other western nations' soldiers are dead, with a great many more severely injured with life altering injuries. You're truly a fool if you actually believe that those wars were about "a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all citizens have a good quality of life". Not only is the evidence that they were not overwhelming, even if for the sake of argument that's what it was about. Do you really truly think that killing all those people, destroying all that infrastructure, etc is a good way of bringing 'democracy' to anyone? Of bringing anything to anyone? You're a truly despicable heartless deluded human if you actually think such a thing. My guess however if you truly are not thinking about what's happened in any remotely realistic context. Very few people are so evil. Most are just willfully ignorant allowing evil people to lead them with falsehoods. You've demonstrated time and again a willingness to ignore just what has happened in those nations, and others, if those things don't jive with your world view or imagined agendas.

It works fine. Trying to circumvent save scumming into game design is fail. Worrying about what players are going to look up on the internet is fail. Some players are going to do that, some are not.

Just need some mountainous regions is all.

There were at least 7 inns outside of the city of Baldur's Gate and at least 6 inside. Pretty sure there was more than that but I just did a quick check. So I'm going to go with at least 12, given there are supposed to be two cities. I'll be disappointed if it's much less than that.

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention. The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant. The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for hosting The Gibberlings 3. I've used it a few times through the years to better my IE gaming experience. I expect to be using it again at some point after playing PoE as I've got the growing urge to fire up Baldur's Gate again (I'd do it now if PoE wasn't on the immediate horizon). Also. I had no clue the host of the G3 a composer. Great stuff. Love the music.

A number of possible reasons. The OP gives you one. He likes to know, that's a good enough reason as any.

I seem to remember that you railed against Walsingham answering for obyknven, with good reason. That's exactly what you are doing now. Whether it's infinite from the pov of any one human isn't relevant (in this thread). This is about information in a general sense. Is it infinite in the universe as a whole? I honestly don't know, but I'm leaning towards no. I'm not fond of infinity as a reality. I seem to remember that Gromnir has an actual physics degree so maybe he can comment, but he's not the only one who could offer an educated guess. More educated than mine, at any rate. Regardless, if you want to frame the question in human terms, then you must also limit the information pool that is relevant to any given human-scale decision by the same measure. At any rate, saying that one can never make informed decisions because "information is INFINITE" is... wacky. Sending you a PM. I think you'll understand why when you read it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWYzIkmgxgQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1m1s Song starts at 1:01

Neither. We're talking about whether it's moral to advise somebody who has suicidal thoughts to kill themselves instead of seeking professional help first. For me its obvious, we have an absolute moral responsibility as a society to help people who suffer from mental ailments and to ensure they get professional help if they want to kill themselves. And this professional help should be mandatory if they refuse it because someone suffering from some sort of mental issue may not be in the best position to know what's best for them There is absolutely nothing moral about what you're saying here. In fact, it's quite evil. Evil..... How is getting people professional psychiatric help evil? Getting someone 'professional help' if they wish it is not evil in and of itself. However, you ask a question that does not fully correspond to what you stated. I bolded and underlined for you why what you suggest is evil (TN says it's misguided, and that it may be, but that makes it no less evil; the road to hell is paved with good intentions). The former bolded is a bit complex to explain, especially to a collectivist like yourself as you're steeped in a philosophy that is immoral at it's foundations as it requires force to implement. I'm not writing that book for you, but the very short of it is that society has no moral obligations at all, individuals do or do not (and what those obligations are, are situational). One requires a conscience in order to have morality, society is an abstract and somewhat subjective ideal which has no conscience. That latter is far more straight forward and simple. If you cannot understand what is fundamentally immoral with the latter, you'll never understand the former.

The advantage is people decide for themselves. It the biggest advantage you can get - deciding about yourself. But you can let people decide for themselves without actively encouraging them to commit suicide. I'll ask again: what advantage is gained by encouraging people having suicidal tendencies to act on those tendencies instead of seeking professional help? Remember: you're not actually forcing anybody to do anything by giving them advice. I missed it. Who in this thread ever said one should encourage someone who is thinking of suicide to commit suicide?

[...]As an aside, I'd love to hear an explanation on why information is infinite. I was under the impression that the universe is a closed system with finite energy. This would suggest that information in a quantum sense is, indeed, finite. However, by virtue of the principle of uncertainty, we know that information doesn't really "exist" unless an observer makes a measurement, and at that precise moment and by virtue of the measurement, the relevant "information" bit comes into existence. Again, since there can only be a limited amount of observers making a finite amount of measurements (because the universe has a finite energy, remember), information is also finite. Further, a prominent model of the end of the universe predicts that it will end with what is called "heat death". In this scenario, the universe becomes esentially a nothingness without distinguishable features (in simple terms, no information). If all information has been destroyed, this means information was finite to begin with. So what makes you say that information is infinite? Well, professor. What's your take? Most of what you two are arguing about is nitpicky crap. I strongly suspect if you two were in the same room you wouldn't be having this discussion as you'd have agreed on most of the major points long ago, and would have moved on to something more constructive. Of all the arguments I've seen pop up on this board in the last year plus I've been here this one between you and Sharp might win the 'what on earth are you guys even arguing about' award. You post a good example of why your discussion is up for the award in the OP. Sharp says that the knowledge to be obtained in the universe is infinite and you wish to argue that it's not? Come on. First, there's no way of knowing if the knowledge is infinite for sure or not, but second and more importantly it effectively is infinite from the point of view of any human (which was the point Sharp was making). The knowledge contained on earth alone is infinite in all practical purposes, let alone if you factor in the knowledge contained outside the confines of earth. Try as one might, it is not possible in a human life time to obtain even a mediocre sized fraction of the knowledge out there that there is to be obtained. One couldn't even achieve that if one was able to extend their lifetime a hundred fold. You two are better than this.

Neither. We're talking about whether it's moral to advise somebody who has suicidal thoughts to kill themselves instead of seeking professional help first. For me its obvious, we have an absolute moral responsibility as a society to help people who suffer from mental ailments and to ensure they get professional help if they want to kill themselves. And this professional help should be mandatory if they refuse it because someone suffering from some sort of mental issue may not be in the best position to know what's best for them There is absolutely nothing moral about what you're saying here. In fact, it's quite evil.

30 years ago today, the studio version of this song was #1 on the Billboard charts. Wham is credited as the first western pop group to ever play in China, and below is from one of those shows.

Good tune. How was the movie?

Yeah I don't think people are intentionally Trolling, I see people disagreeing with each other. This is not the same thing as Trolling Then you're blind. Or, as others have posited, a troll yourself. Then again, perhaps you don't know what a troll is. Whoever made the forum rules certainly doesn't seem to know. Hint:

It's mostly disingenuous. For the most part the same people who run around lowering the level of conversation with disrespect and by starting hostility are the same people making bad jokes and trolling.