213374U

Aw man. Just when we're starting to get along, you go and quit on me. You know we've had our disagreements, but I was beginning to think you were one of the most equitable mods around here. A shame. Oh well. GL & HF As for the rest of you guys, if you can nominate, then I'm going to veto your nominations. Save for Eldar maybe, you'd all make horrible mods, and you know it. )

How 'bout you stop metaspamming, Hilde? )

Looking good.

My vacuum? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we finally scattered that scruffy, unscientific crowd.

If the costumes used in that game aren't reason enough as to why you shouldn't mess with the past, then nothing is.

Well, I think I broke my brain. Thanks for nothing!

Wow. Just wow. Right. I know what you mean. Taking equations literally isn't a very good way of explaining things, though. You don't really have "infinite" mass, as it's not exactly infinite, but a constant number divided by an amount that approaches zero. And while in calculus a constant divided by zero is considered "infinite", infinite is not a number, and in this case "infinite" mass just makes no sense. And, as I explained in my previous post, the energy considerations would prevent the equation from reaching the limit anyway. No. Photons have a speed of c, regardless of the speed of the observer. You just can't "catch up" to photons, but it's not because you can't reach their speed (which you can't, but for other reasons), but because of relativity. Applying your logic, you wouldn't be able to reach any speed greater than zero, because your relative speed in relation to the photon would be less than c, and that contradicts the postulate. You are applying an euclidean interpretation to a relativistic effect. Those two don't work well together. What that postulate does imply, however, is that c is the maximum observable speed in the universe. Did you? Well, we agree on that, then. That last statement wasn't aimed at you in particular, anyway.

Uh, even if I was enough of a nerd to actually read binary, I doubt I would anyway. It's just too much work.

oloolollol? I don't get it.

"Infinite" is simply the limit of the equation which expresses mass as a function of speed, when speed approaches c. It's not a real world value. What is an impossibility is to accelerate something that has a mass approaching infinite, to the speed of light, as according to Newtonian physics, at a certain point that would require more energy than there is in the universe, when the mass was close enough to c. All of that, again, from a classic physics and thermodynamics standpoint. The effects of time dilation can be experienced at speeds much more reasonable than c, though. Er, no. That postulate in particular doesn't imply that you can't reach the speed of light. At any rate, to say that relativistic time dilation qualifies as time travel is misleading at best, and inaccurate at worst. It does only work one way, for starters.

It's stupid alright. As things are right now, it's just a matter of qualification for the job. If I'm not mistaken, women usually earn less than men, in the same job. Which is another reason companies have to hire women instead of men, provided the qualification is the same. Not that I approve, but that's the way it is. Yeah. I felt so... so excluded. :'(

Funny. Most of the arguments presented here (save for those based on actual science) have the same weight as me tossing a coin. Let's do it. Oops. The coin says time travel isn't possible. Stupid coin... <_< Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't like time travel, however. I don't think linear time travel is possible, as it's obvious that our notions of "past" and "future" are to time what an isometric projection is to a 3D figure, to put it somehow. And no, time dilation derived from relativistic speeds is not what most people would consider time travel.

Bah. Supershadow knew this months ago. Months, I say!

Yep. Perhaps you won too many battles. Um. It has a "good" ending in which WWIII is prevented, and one in which it's not. I think that's about it. The epilogues for the party members are different under some circumstances, I don't know how exactly.

They look like screenshots taken from the kind of games I can't run.

Seems to me you went through the short path. I've been playing this for a few days now, and I have to say it's a pretty fun game. However, I like the setting, and I liked S^2-3. The game is basically the same as its predecessors, but it allows you to make a few decisions here and there, that set you on the different branches of the plot. Roleplaying is not its strongest point, though. Character creation is basically restricted to face and stat selection, as you can't even play a female. Character interaction is... great for a tactical TB game, but only OK for an RPG. The game suffers from a few imbalance issues, such as the melee skill that a mid-level scout can easily use to murder a whole platoon with his bare hands in a single turn, and the ability to toss demolition charges as if they were grenades. Some of the skill problems of S^2-3 are still present, such as the practical inability to raise your Interrupt skill unless you want to play hide-and-seek with the enemy. This is particularly annoying as the enemy usually has nearly maxed Interrupt, and this means they constantly interrupt you while you can't interrupt them. It has a few interesting features, such as a high degree of difficulty customization. Oddly, the "normal" difficulty is quite hard, and I had to start over as I was getting consistently raped. And I'm not a newbie to this kind of games. The whole deal with the disguises is pretty cool too, as police officers will immediately shoot gun-toting bandits, but they will leave allied soldiers alone. The different plot branches are a plus, too, as it's impossible to do everything in a single playthrough since some branches are mutually exclusive. Interestingly enough, you can lose the game even if you win every battle. The only thing I miss in this game is multiplayer. The gameplay seems tailored to support it, but apparently they simply forgot about it. Hopefully they will some day release something in this engine that allows for some good ol' multiplayer carnage.

Changeling is part of the old WoD.

Defensive? Naw. I try my best to be quite offensive, though. )

Funny. I guess you call putting some stupid random sh*t inside some quote tags under someone else's name "arguing", then. Apparently, making random unsupported claims and expecting everyone else to agree with you is a good way to argue, too. But what can I say, not everyone is possessed of the legendary burning wit you sport in your "creative quoting", as seen above. My, Jizzle himself would be impressed. Keep going man, I can tell you're pressing hard for the lamest post of the year award. The sooner you start, the greater your chances, eh? Come think of it, you're too lame to win even that.

You might want to consider laying off the crack. Also, stop spamming, while you're at it.

Extra game content ≠ better game.

Well, that's a different thing. I don't like El Quijote, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "it sucks". But yeah, you could like it based on my opinions. That would work too.