213374U

Yeah, but that meant you no longer could build their kickass budget Torch vessels. And in order to exterminate the Druuge, you just need to wait until the Kohr-Ah win the Doctrinal War and begin their "cleansing"... I think the Druuge were one of their first victims.

Demagogy at its finest. A widely extended practice to be sure, but taken to an absurd degree in my country. Oh, well. I'll stop now before I'm accused of being a fascist.

It's always nice to see that despite one's best efforts to illustrate a standpoint, somebody always manages to dumb it down. It's illogical to think that the Universe "just is" and it has been like that forever. Causality is a constant in our reality, and thus, it makes sense to think that there must be a cause for the Universe as well. However, if we conceive a "God" (or a creating force, or whatever you want to call it) that is outside our reality, it no longer needs to be bound by the rules that usually apply, causality among them. Is it a leap of faith? An assumption? Indeed. BUT it is applied logic whithout ruling out the possibility of a system that doesn't obey logic. You believe in the infallibility of logic. I, while having an unshakable faith in logic, do not believe that nothing can escape it.

Ariloulaleelay pwnz j00. And the Thraddash kick some serious ass, too. I just don't get how could they get raped by the Ilwrath.

Yeah. All I have to say about that is: " Well, Lucas is SW, with all that entails. The bad parts, too. SW being cool does not mean it's flawless and that does not make GL a god. I like SW overall, but I reckon that without Lucas directing, some parts could have been better. The horrible way the lightsaber fights are filmed in E3, for instance. Lucas went for a close-up approach to the fights, which results in the spectator not really knowing what the hell is going on. However, there is no guarantee that with a different director the overall result would have been better, or even that good.

So much coffee will give you an ulcera.

True enough, but that still doesn't account for the relation between space and time. Considering them two sides of a same coin, if you will, works better. My concept of space is not a vacuum with particles floating in it. I tend to consider it more like a "fluid" together with time. Perhaps the discovery of such "gravitons" will lead to the prediction and discovery of "chronatons", but that is science fiction right now. The universe of stars isn't infinite. It has a finite, calculated mass. However, if you can conceive the infinity of time, can't you conceive the infinity of space, too? I think that the farthest we have managed to look is the infrared background noise, which is assumed is the remnant radiation of the initial Big Bang. That would indicate where the boundary of space is, assuming that space began its expansion at the beginning of time, and assuming space expands at the speed of light. Lots of assumptions there. I think I read something about the expansion of space, but unfortunately that's beyond my knowledge. But anyway, I think that the Universe being infinite has more to do with the curvature of space than the euclidean concept of an infinite space.

No. Read again, and execute the instructions in the order they are given. FIRST, get rid of your prejudices, THEN, watch HF movies.

Of course it is. And empires protect their interests before anyone else's. Why should they do otherwise?

I have not said that space is finite. In fact, current theories sustain the opposite. But you are still applying a mundane perspective. Why does it have to be anything outside space, even space itself? But at any rate, it is still possible that there is something outside the infinite space. Those are not mutually precluding statements. Infinite units or sets can be contained within other infinite sets. Yes, yes. That's great and all, but it's not what I meant. I know that scientific laws are reliable enough. What is not a self-evident truth is that science will be able to explain everything. You said so yourself in a previous post, in a quote of Stephen Hawking, I think. And even if we do what Hawking proposes, there is still no guarantee that reason can find answers for everything.

I suggest the two of you get rid of your prejudices and watch a few more HF movies.

And why does it need to exist inside of anything? You are applying a mundane, limited approach which may not be valid since it's the framework we are talking about, not what's inside it. Space exists in itself, and has some observable properties. If you think that "the fabric of space" exists within a reality of nothingness that you refer to as "space", you are introducing an unnecessary entity into the reasoning. Occham's razor? There is the assumption I was talking about before. You may believe that science may be a pathway to the ultimate philosophical answers, but that's just a supposition. Take for instance the notion of "luck". An idea as old as mankind itself, and still we have found no explanation for it. In all of this time, science has not come a single step closer to answering metaphisical questions than it was when we first began to develop numerical systems. You have faith in science and logic, but as any belief, it is not something absolute, not a self-evident truth. Is it so hard to picture that there may be something beyond the feeble grasp of our reason? No. It's more like "I would rather say 'I don't know' and forget about it". If Sir Isaac Newton had had the same attitude, he wouldn't have formulated his Principia. I'm not talking about religious revelations, mind you, because for starters, I'm not a religious person. However, "God" is a metaphysical entity needed to explain reality and existence in certain philosophical schemes. You might not accept those schemes, and that's just fine. But trying to prove them wrong wielding other arguments based in different kinds of faith is absurd.

Since the degree of demagogy in the previous post clearly proves that the poster above does not care much for the finer points of international politics or diplomacy and places terrorist acts in the same scale of warranted military actions, I will simply point out the obvious: Their might gives them the right. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I believe in democracy, but not as it is now. I don't believe in a "natural right" for everyone to vote, and the idea that every vote is worth the same is ludicrous. So I guess the answer would be no.

NWN had music? Anyway, my all-time favorite has to be TIE Fighter. Not only were the tracks great, it featured dynamic music that meshed with the action better than in any other game I have seen since. Some other games worth mentioning are SoA, WC1/2, and Half-Life.

Glorious indeed.

Of course it's my opinion. However, you won't find many people who consider McGregor a better actor than Harrison Ford.

That's pretty rich. Jackson only plays a minor role. Lee's character dies within the first 10 minutes. McDiarmid overacts in quite a few scenes, and I'm not referring to the "cackling fool" ones. Christensen has improved, but he's still not at the level of the rest. And while McGregor is good, he's nowhere near Harrison Ford. He will never be, sorry. It's a matter of acting talent.

There's nothing magical about God. And there's no need to scream in fear either. You see, it's the default explanation, until we can get us a better one. You are defending the idea that we are, and I agree with you. But simply accepting that we have always been is like not wanting to know more. And as for God always being there, it's not really a double-standard or a contradiction because while we need to find logical mechanisms for the Universe, the same may not be true for God if he exists outside this universe, and therefore outside logic. I don't believe it's that way, but I see no fault with that reasoning. Unfortunately, you have to make assumptions (some would call them beliefs) either way to reach a conclusion. But obviously, the validity of said conclusion depends on the assumption being true. And since, by definition, those premises can't be proven, we have effectively reached a dead end.

Is it? I'm not so sure, since space and time are closely related, and it looks like time began with the Big Bang. Theoretically, it is space that is bent in the presence of large masses creating the effect known as a gravitational field. While we tend to equate "vacuum" and "nothingness" with "space", they are not the same thing.

However, emptiness does exist, too, even if only as the reality within we exist. It is a necessary part of it. Much like before carrying out operations within a mathematical space you need to define that space. Did you read my post? I'm actually tempted to quote myself. Perhaps religious people will, but I'm not religious so the point is moot. And just "Universe" is an even more ineffective and incomplete explanation than God -> Universe. You could try to apply the same reasoning to the Law of Gravity claiming that stuff falls just because it does. However, gravity needs to be introduced in order to satisfactorily explain why does it fall. It's only called a "fallacy" by those arrogant enough to think they can disprove the existance of God by means of logic. As I said, who or what created God is a different issue. The idea that God exists and created the Universe takes us to an infinite loop of "who created the creator of the creator of the creator...?", that much is true. But that does not warrant the use of Occham's razor to simplify God from a reasoning in which he is necessary.

Contrary to popular belief, the chances of finding ph4t 1007 in Diablo were actually rather slim. You found loads of crap, though.

Yes. But those elements are all infinite in their dimensions (including the point which is nothing but a perpendicular axis to the rotation plane), therefore, the next element in the scale should be infinite, too. The problem with considering it a cube of finite dimensions is that if the orbit radius was long enough, the cube could be considered for all intents and purposes a point, and therefore, the eight-dimensional rotation could be impossible. You could consider it a cube of infinite dimensions, or the element generated by a "plane beam" in which the parameter takes every (infinite cardinal) value. ...or something.

Is it? They allow lots of trash in their forums. Does that mean they are in the business of er... garbage dumping?