213374U

Not really. It's more like a bunch of smart devs trying to take advantage of the X-Com franchise with their UFO wannabe products.

Fix'd.

I feel your pain.

No, it's not. It's the sequel to UFO: Aftermath. A bloody awful game if I may say so.

I'm not even remotely interested in like 95% of those... And other games I'm interested in like Hammer and Sickle weren't featured at the E3. Damn, it's becoming more and more difficult to tell good games from mediocre ones with so many being produced each year.

Oh. May I ask where did you get your degree in nutrition? You know, I didn't make all that stuff up. And I haven't seen that film either. I just read.

No.

It must suck to be a vegan.

Not for long, anyway...

Impressive, but... Harry Potter for 100 consecutive hours? Isn't that against the Geneva conventions or something? :ph34r:

Perhaps whoever sticky'ed this thread could explain his reasons for doing so?

No. No amount of physical exercise would be enough to offset the caloric supply of a diet consisting of daily McD's food. You don't see bodybuilders or other athletes eating at McD's. And the physical exercise can't do anything about the cholesterol that will turn your arteriae into waste dumps.

Er... those ARE facts. While I like McD's food, it's a proven fact by nutritionists and cardiologists worldwide that having it too often will kill you.

Oh, but it does matter. Knowledge is not composed of an infinity of isolated cells. Knowledge is a whole, and as far-fetched as it may be, knowing about the origins of the Universe could help save your life one day. The future will be the present at some point.

No. Wiki reductio No, you don't "believe" in them. You operate based on them for the sake of discussion. It's not the same thing.

No, that's not how inductive reasoning works. In a situation of "if and only if", a reductio ad absurdum proof proves beyond all doubt that the condition you are enouncing is true. As I said, it's as valid as any other reasoning structure you can think of. Experimental evidence works in a similar way. Inductive reasoning is an important pillar of mathematics AND logic. Neither of those have anything to do with faith. Just like science. No, you're not expected to believe something outright. If you did, there would be no need for proof. But, for the sake of discussion, you work based on that postulate. If you fail to arrive to satisfactory conclusions based on your postulate, then you are forced to rework that postulate, discard it, or become a prophet of your own truth. Only then would faith be a factor.

IIRC, 47 was pretty buff, too. And muscles aren't so obvious when you're clad in your average hitman suit. Does any of you guys remember that Skinner guy from the X-files? He was very muscular, but one would have never guessed since he was always wearing suits.

And apparently you've never heard of how inductive reasoning works. You're free to enounce a postulate, but then, you're supposed to back its validity up by either a reductio ad absurdum proof or experimental evidence that establishes your postulate as the most likely explanation for something, until someone can come up with something more solid. That kind of reasoning is just as valid as deductive reasoning, only it proceeds backwards. You don't just make stuff up.

Well, you're free not to accept them (in fact you are encouraged not to), but until you can prove them wrong (which most likely is impossible due to the nature of science), the rest of the world will still be working under the present principles of science. I don't "support" string theory, because I don't know enough about it to actually convince other people about its validity and I can't use it to counter other people's ideas. But that doesn't mean I think string theory is wrong. What, are scientists worldwide trying to fool everyone? It sure would be, if science needed belief. But it doesn't. Science is about the observation of the underlying natural patterns that can be recognized and structured into mathematical systems. Mathematics don't need you to believe in them, and by association, neither does science.

Only responsible role-playing on the players' part and the GM discouraging metagaming can solve that.

They had no way to prove their impressions. That is the difference between ancient philosophy and modern science. That is why, for instance, we have the Internet, and they didn't. That is not true. I see you haven't understood what I posted. When a theoretical model that has given birth to laws becomes obsolete, it is simply improved, expanded to incorporate the exceptions which weren't previously covered by it, never outright discarded. In the eventuality of a Theory of Everything (or Unification), Maxwell's equations or Newtonian gravity aren't going to be "scratched". No. You can't compare religion to physics, because they are a completely different thing. Not only because of the fields they cover, but because their goal. Science doesn't aim to explain "why", but "how". With religion, it's the other way around.

No. God is a metaphysical entity. Philosophy and religion deal with that but they lack an experimental metodology to prove beyond all doubt their postulates. On the other hand, science deals with the physical. Due to the fact that science is based on proof, if a scientific statement is proven by experimental means, then we know it to be true. So far, no scientific law proven by this method has been found to be false. Limited, yes. Valid only within certain parameters, yes. But not false. You might argue that there may be things outside the scope of science and even logic, and I would agree. But if that is so, then science isn't supposed to deal with them, at least not in the way we have built science. That is why science doesn't require faith.

Well, if it means it's being made, it's fine by me. It still has the potential to be a good action flick. And it's not like it'll be an extremely draining performance for Vin since good ol' 47 wasn't exactly what we would call... expressive.

Isn't that CS' infamous Arctic Warfare Magnum?