Rosbjerg

Hahaha.. The first two are scary good.

I only had Legion die.. which was quite annoying. Legion was Tech Samara was the leader of the second team, then she was the biotic bubble babe. While Miranda took over as leader. Mordin took people back Tali and Garrus came to the boss fight Everyone was loyal etc etc.. perhaps I need to switch Tali and Legion?

^ I often wondered that myself.. This week: Borderlands

That counter argument only really works if it was Ted Bundy I killed.. As I don't have a problem with people, who actually have their bases covered, criticizing me.

Fair points and you are absolutely right - it's deflective argumentation.. I can't argue that smoking is good for me, I know it's not. I can't argue that smoking is good for my surroundings, I know it's not. I however try to minimize the exposure to people around me, I try my very best to not smoke around non-smokers. I just really hate the constant hate, especially because I feel the vast majority of haters don't have the right to claim the high ground.

Imagine Fallout 3 with Call of Duty MW weapons and ballistic mechanics! Sniping would be absolutely amazing.. I always found it extremely lacking in FO3..

No two wrongs don't make a right, but smokers are just an easy target and a great way to shift the blame. I see this (third hand smoking) as having become nothing more than society wanting to feel better about themselves by "making a difference" and "saving the kids", while real, much more serious and a lot harder problems are ignored out of complacency. I don't blame the cars, industry or the rampant consumerism, mostly because that would be hypocritical, but I get a little pissed when people start blaming me. I make sure that my impact is as small as possible and that even with cigarettes I have a lesser impact on air pollution than the majority. Just because you find my habit gross what right do you have to pollute more than I do, when you have an alternative too? How is my addiction worse than what you are doing? And coal plants are serious polluters and pose very serious health problems, look it up some time - here is one article from a random search.

You do that at Bethesda, as they are the owners of the licence. You are free to discuss Fallout 3 NV at these forums, but please refer to the subforum "Computer and Console".

Right.. because the fact that coal-power plants in Australia are pumping out unimaginable amounts of pollution to satisfy your AC units, computers and whatever cheap polluting electronic you have - is sooo much cleaner than cigarettes. How do you justify polluting the air I breathe just because you want ice in your water? I think it's a fair argument - why not drive a hybrid car? Why choose the SUV or 4 wheeler unless it has an actual purpose. Why not promote clean energy instead of building more coal or gas plants? If it's so important to have clean air that you are stabbing at smokers, why not do something that really makes a difference?

Of course we need to be careful with tobacco, polution etc around kids - but seriously.. I'm not very happy about this crusade against unhealthy practices, living in a city isn't exactly healthy for you either. When I grew up smoking was allowed almost everywhere - in planes, restaurants, train stations and so on.. now, it seems that you can't even smoke cigarette outside without people looking at you like you just pulled out a gun. It's getting ridiculous. I don't hate people who own cars for polluting my air, I could just move out of the city if it was a problem for me.

Hey Jags.. Have you been hanging around a guy who calls himself Mystery by any chance? I sense his dark teaching in you.

But then again - we know a lot more know.. apparently there are other "others" (I always wondered what happened to those kids). Richard seems to be a kind of neutral immortal, opposed to Jacob and Smokey. Seems that Locke's knives, Christian Shephard and various other things from the alternative timeline was warped into the one we know..? I think season 6 is gonna be interesting.. and fans are gonna be even more annoying.

That kid was a retard.. I don't think I would like that game, but I'm very interested in this whole "interactive films" approach some developers are taking.. when the technology gets better I think it'll be a cool genre.

Insane.. But it's good that Vice did this documentary.. I wouldn't have believed how fubar it was if I hadn't seen it through their eyes.

I'll close this thread due to extensive spam. If the author wants to have it reopened - PM me or another mod.

Indeed, it would be a hilarious spectacle.. I must admit I have a hard time imagining prisoners rolling their dice and playing their paladins and rogues. Maybe I have an unrealistic view of what kind of people inhabit prisons.

Unfortunately most matrilineal societies still relied on a male leader. It just meant that the line of succession was dependent on the woman rather than the King. So basically the King's sister or aunt would carry the heir. A true matriarchy is fairly unheard of. Today yes, but go back at the dawn of the agricultural revolution and you'll find quite many.. after, we saw modifications and merging of patriarchal and matriarchal societes, especially in monarchies; like the cognatic succesion - allowing queens, the absolute primogeniture - which allowed the eldest child (regardless of sex) to inherit the throne or the egyptian variant which alternated between male and female. As history progressed rule would drift more and more towards the eldest son (and "classic" hereditary succesion), because a male heir could lead the armies as society became more male-oriented.

I see your point, but I think we are misunderstanding one another.. I propose that men took control at the beginning of the agricultural age (before any organized science or larger state), as they were the hard workers, given their physical strength, and thus demanded the right to power. Men being stronger could force this through and women, having no physical advantage were forced to surrender their power. It's interesting that before the Aryans (which are believed to be the first to develop agriculture) there were quite many matriarchal societies spread out across the world, but as agriculture and Aryan culture spread so did the belief that men were the superior gender.. As they proved more valuable in producing food.. The Aryans had the advantage of technology and thus were able to subjugate the other tribes and further spread their ideas. The 500bc remark was to draw your associations to the Roman and Greek cultures who were very patrician in their structure, since their cultures have had a profound effect on they way we live and think today. Of course the fact that we took power so early implies that men were quicker to take advantage or their abilities and use it to gain power, which could be used to argue that they are better - but I think it's rather a question of the time rather than the specific gender's genetic advantage. Basically I guess it comes back to that moment in time, when men first took control.. the sufficiently powerful will always be able to defeat the lesser powerful people and once men had secured power over women it was easy to keep it. Those in power want to keep it and naturally try to create a culture and belief around their destiny to wield said power, since genders seems to be a much looser categorization than say geology, culture, religion and later nationality - we can assume that women were not able to organize themselves enough, based on this, to turn the cultural tide. The question here is if it was mental superiority of men that allowed us to take control - I think not - but I can't prove it. Question is if you can prove that it was? Saying that we are superior, simply because we were able to maintain a culture that kept us in power is not enough imo. I think Egypt did quite all right to be honest.. Sorry, I didn't see your reference to my statement.. I don't think women are superior, so my words were ill chosen. I merely looked at a history controlled by men and didn't quite like what I saw - but not knowing the alternative I have no idea if a female dominant history would be better.. my gut feeling however, tells me it would have been a little more peaceful..

True, it shouldn't be taboo to air an opinion.. I think your conclusions are weak, you use history as a way to give weight to your point, but since women have been forcefully kept out of any kind of intellectual circle from ~500 bc and until the 20th century - it's not a fair comparison. Also you argue that men must be superior since they've been able to subdue women, this argument has some weight, but it merely proves that we are physically superior, after all the fear of death or ostracization from society is a powerful weapon.. To that extent you must also take culture into account, as women were not allowed to educate themselves they could not fight back equally and rarely knew how. Would you say that slaves were inferior to their masters for instance? Since the same mechanism were in place here, if only in a much stronger way.. As demonstrated in my question above, my problem with your reasoning is that it is comparable with saying that white people are more intelligent than black people, since we are richer, more technologically advanced, have dominated the scientific community and have ruled over and conquered them with ease.. As such, we must be the superior race? If you look at IQ scores I would wager that you don't see big variation around the median, but I would think men are more presented in the extremes - so we have more retards and more genius level intelligences..

Interestingly I saw a lecture on a particularly boring TV channel where a neurologist talked about the differences in male and female thought patterns - which she described as almost equivalent to analogue and digital data.. The majority of males were best at handling a single, but long stream of information, while the majority of females were best at handling shorter, but multiple streams of information. This was in regards to how intelligence may work in different ways than we imagine and how each person approach learning, as apparently our brain is pre-mapped to cope better with one of these particular methods. In response to this article it might also be interesting to see if that had an effect - perhaps girls are better at strategy and boys are better at FPS games.. due to the nature of how we think. Ehh.. It never occurred to you that this is still a male-oriented and male-dominated world? and perhaps women would easily equal or even surpass us, in a lot of fields, if they were given a fair chance? I think it's stupid to say that men are superior to women, when women still don't have an equal opportunity prove themselves.. It's like shooting your competitor in the leg and then claim your obvious superiority when you outrun him.. Edit: I'm not disputing physical advantages though, men are designed to be stronger and faster than women - but I don't see any evidence on us being smarter.. quite the contrary actually..

Sorry mate, I think we are.. it's the coldest winter I can remember for the last decade and the snow has stayed for the better part of a month now.. which is unusual. Come by and pick it up anytime.. but make it soon!

Has already been answered to great degree, but I wanted to share my 2cents.. It's all to do with practicality; pigs, cows, chicken, goats and sheep are, for one, all herbivores (which tends to taste a lot better than carnivores or omnivores like dogs and cats), they grow to a rather large size relatively quickly and are more docile by nature, which has been increased by breeding. They are therefore more cost-efficient and easier to keep, as they don't require meat that the farmer needs for himself and his family. On top of that, almost all of the animals we keep produce various raw materials that we need in other goods; like leather, feathers, milk and wool. While the dogs or even cats skin might also be used for leather, I must assume that it is of lower quality (perhaps due to softer skin) and therefore not as viable as the cow's or other game's skin. As we treat our fellow man differently, based on what he is and what he does for us, so do we treat animals different. Why not give the cow, which puts clothes on your back and food on your table more attention and love, than the fox which steals it? I for one think it's a bit sad that we can't talk about races in a down-to-Earth way, without it seeming controversial. As you can see here, race does play it's part in our genes. I also think it would demystify the entire ordeal if we simply treated it as an everyday thing, right now I feel race is becoming more of an issue because people are doing everything they can to make it less of an issue..

Haha.. me too..

I think Purkake has a point, what you say on the internet is usually an exaggeration of what you really feel. Although I did find Copenhagen a lot darker and dystopian just immediately after I walked out from the movie (especially because the cinema is situated in an old industrial area).. I could imagine that feeling sticking with some people.. Perhaps a 2 week vacation to Thailand should be included in the ticket price?

It's amazingly beautiful.. but I saw it with my buddy and we had visited most of the places filmed in The Fall and because of that it was difficult to really take it in, when they ran around the corner and we knew they had just travelled over 2000 miles but a huge kudos to the director, for making all the scenes and location fit together so seamless.. mostly because many of the buildings, which look so peaceful in the film, are situated in urban nightmare sprawl..