metadigital
-
Posts
13711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by metadigital
-
-
I still believe that for every action you could find claiming a good one there a opposite that would contradict it aswell, if there werent there wouldnt be as much conflict of opions and wars and misery as we often see in news everyday.
I am sure i could find as many examples of DS being a hero in the end as LS cases, simply because morals can always hit grey zones where nothing is either good or evil but merely a mean to provide a greater good of the whole.
If you dont believe me then let me ask you holding to ropes at a cliff side where you know eventually you can only save one would you save a person you viewed as good or a evil person that held information you knew 10 people would die less you got.
In the grey if you choose to save who you viewed as evil in hopes he would let you save the 10 others, youd have to let a innocent(good die), there no absolute that the evil person would even help you if you helped him but would you try save the 10 or settle for saving one good?
Theres a boat you out on a cruise and there no land anywhere near, you boat break but there only a means survival for one would you collectively decide to die together or pick one out, id imagine most good people would insist they stayed butt in the end would you be able as good person to leave anyone behind to save yourself or would you all decide to die together, if you did would the world as a whole better off with the one less person that could actually made it away alive?
If you and a best friend were on a road trip but got trapped without food or any means for food and you know if one of you laid down your life for the other to live from consuming well you get the picture, would you be able to let you best friend make the offer or would he/she let you make the offer or if both could because of moral or ethic not do it would the world be a better place because none of you could make the decision to let the other life?
My point is true evil people to things for themselves only but often good people cant allow a evil act in order to let other survive so in general they both can contribute to loss/evil and both can willing or unwilling constribute to good, of any person to presume they can judge whats good and what not would be making themselves gods because they can possible know that the choice they made wouldnt have stopped a greater good from happening, but hey we can always say we acted in what we believed to be the greater good, so does many war criminals insist on saying does that make it right?
If you decided to judge a person for murder and sentence him to death you would do what you moral and coinscience would tell you to do given your "good", but you cant possible know the future only gods can given they exist, there no saying that a epidemic couldnt break out and kill 100000people or more and that the man you just killed couldnt have had the cure to in his blood to save them sure its likely he wouldnt have it but could you be 100% sure?
So are you a greater being of good to make that choice do you have the right to make it?
What good what is dark and what isnt grey?
I wont argue i am right but nor would i ever claim to know that there a greater truth to what evil and what not, sure one can claim indivudual case for each person but you cant possible be certain that they wouldnt contribute to a greater good some point in their life willing or unwilling, and sure as race we have developed moral compass but still i believe there no general in life you cant generalise things.
Good has what ever way you look at it constributed as much misery as evil has, sure on can argue its the way it was done that matter but then its a moral opion is it not?
There are innate concepts of "fair play" (morality) in all humans (and possibly other species) that belie your logic. Given a conundrum, 98% (i.e. everyone as a first approximation, and allowing for the special case of psychopathy) will respond the same way to ethical dilemm
-
I'm assuming you are trying to be funny by being as rude as you are. All the same, I'll thank you for not insulting the team.
(Illiud Latine dici non potest.)
-
Probably by giving a greater (or even infinite) supply of the relevent items, and more chances to use them in levels (prefrably giving the player mutiple venues to objectives which would make use of such skills). You can resupply your guys with ammo back at base, but the low levels of items such as TNT and other 'non essential' engineer items meant that you were never encoraged to really use them (as opposed to, for example an AT grenade from your HW guy, the game had very destructable terrain), and as such, had very little oppotunity to make use of the skill.
I must have opened every lock/trap the 'correct' way with my Engineer, but by the end of the game, there were still items unusable due to the lack of skill level. Really this is a balance issue though.
The other main use of the Engineer was Panzerkligns (power armour, basically), in which they get a lot of skills, at high levels, but the Panzerkligns themselves (again, late game only) screw up the balance of the game so much that i'm not even going to go there.
I guess specific special abilities for the under-valued classes might help to address the issue, too ... though it seems the developers screwed the pooch when they tried that with the Panzerkilgn manifestation of the Engineer class ...
-
I think you know more about the subject(s) than the author of the test.
-
Actually, Dawkins propounds a almost perfect proof of the non-existence of God in his book The God Delusion ... so, for those that believe, faith is in spite of proof to the contrary.
-
-
Oh, don't get me wrong-- AD&D was worse that D&D in most respects. Mostly, I'm sick of clunky rules that were clearly designed to be implemented in a tabletop game with nothing more than a few dice and some scratch paper as a calculation mechanism. That and endless fanboys on message boards complaining that the developers didn't implement their favorite obscure race/class/feat properly.
Yeah, I think that the human element of DnD is almost completely forgotten -- or de-emphasized to such an extent -- such that computers fail to provide the same gaming experience and fans cannot understand why. The simple answer is that groups of people interacting in a fantasy setting is much more compelling (and relies far less on rules) than what they give it credit for.
This is partly why I'm interested in Dragon Age; Bioware's making their own rules rather than using spendy D&D rules that weren't designed with computer games in mind.
-
"Mary Sue" is a metacharacter in fiction that the author uses to portray her self on the story. There are several types, but the most prominent one is usually a "perfect" character which author uses to solve unresolved issues, live fantasies and be an allaround hero. This kind of characteration usually appears in fan fiction in particular, where Mary Sue characters often have all the knowledge of their author, aka omniscience, and can use that to easily bend all her favorite to her will, kill of ones that she perceives as villains and raise hypogamies with all her favorite characters, who probably change their views, sexual bias and persona at her whim at her will as well.
In short, it's a poor form of characteration in fiction.
Congrats on giving me a word to look up!
I found an interesting site here.
Hypergamy: Denotes a marriage rule prescribing union of a female with a male of higher status. Contra. "Hypogamy"Hypogamy: Denotes a marriage rule prescribing union of a female to a male to a male of lower status. Contra. "Hypergamy"
Also, I found the wikipedia article pretty funny, too:
The definition today has widened considerably to encompass most clich -
A Windows CONFIG.SYS HIMEM command?
-
So ... you're the thinking person's president! No spin, no photo-ops, not even a photogenic candidate ... still, my suggestion was based on your sound economic credentials and commitment to the smallest practicable government footprint ... that don't change with a shave-and-a-haircut.
-
Identifying colliding systems is crucial for understanding the makeup and workings of the universe. Scientists have cited evidence from cluster collisions as some of the best available yet that dark matter and dark energy really do exist. Also, if unrecognized, collisions can lead to an underestimation of galaxy clusters by as much as 20% because of the large amounts of gas ejected during a crash.
Scientists rely on the mass of various galaxy clusters to estimate the cosmological parameters describing the expansion of the universe.
Astronomy is still a very young science (evidenced by the large percentage of innovation accomplished by the ranks of amateurs), and is handicapped by the sheer magnitude of the tasks involved ... for example, Charon (the twin dwarf planet of Pluto) was only discovered in 1976 ... and Pluto was only discovered (in 1920) because astronomers were looking for a huge planet to explain some gravitational perturbations in Uranus and Neptune (which turned out to be completely erroneous calculations, hence Pluto has a smaller mass than Mercury, Io or Titan and is more like a Trans-Neptunian Object asteroid than a non-gaseous planet).
The sky is just so big that it is taking a long, long time to even begin to start mapping it. Though, the (visible) universe is so incomprehensibly large that it is almost certain that everything that can be possible IS out there, somewhere.
Still, colliding galactic clusters is a pretty impressive event, I'll grant you.
I quoted a section of the report because I am quite skeptical of "dark matter" and even moreso of "dark energy" ... I think that there must be better explanations than stretching the existing physics models beyond significant boundaries into unrecognisable parodies of what they were originally designed to explain.
-
... a Man with No Name ...
You scored 11 Honor, 1 Justice, 9 Adventure, and 2 Individuality!
You scored higher than 92% on Ninjinuity
You scored higher than 1% on Knightlyness
You scored higher than 90% on Cowboiosity
You scored higher than 5% on Piratical Bent
-
Another nutter like you?
-
... And you never had a moment where, during a very heated argument (of course), you might have accidentally shot her with a 40" battleship gun and/or run her over (and reversed back) in a M1 Abrams?
" -
taks for President!
-
The game webpage locked up at only 46% when I tried to play the game.
-
Yeah, sorry about that. I was more angling for a comic entendre (you offing your ex-wife, making her an ex-person, so to speak), but you've gone and ruined my VERY HUMOROUS comment with the cold, hard glare of reality. No wonder your ex hates you!
[/runs away from yet another attempt at humour in poor taste]
-
In either case the victim is still dead. In either case the intent is to kill. Lacking in ability to control one's emotions is not an excuse to commit murder.
I agree. Nor should it mitigate the penalty. Remeber, we are talking about finger that pulls the trigger, the hand that wields the knife so to speak. One person deliberately taking the life of another. If Sand and I got into a bar fight and one of us kills the other with a punch by freak circumstance, that is not murder, it is Manslughter, a lesser crime where you cause a death but did not intend to kill. If during the bar fight one of us pulls a weapon and kills the other, that is murder. I do not want to hear any "crime of passion" excuse then. The moment a weapon is pulled, the whole ball game changes.
I see you are not familiar with passion.
I have an ex wife. I know.
I am interested in your "ex"ness: how "ex" are we talking ..?
I see you are not familiar with passion.It is irrelevant. A human being has free will. That means if that human being chooses to kill someone, either by planning the death or because of emotional stress, he or she is still making the conscience choice to kill a person.
The enormity of research that contradicts your (as usual) simplistic response is overwhelming in scope.
-
No, I haven't. It sounds like alarmist nonsense; the population growth is more than likely to even out and balance with what the Earth can provide, and human technology is more than likely going to re-engage with sustainable practices in the very near future ... there was a news item this week on some guy's idea to create multi-storey farms in New York, for example (probably borrowing heavily from research done in the self-sufficient Biodome experiments).
We have long since passed the point of no return with respect to industry and civilization ... can you imagine going back to banking without computers?Possibly...but we would still be able to survive, and ultimately again thrive even if somethind did happen. Life...will go on...
You didn't clarify extraneous terms such as "minimal levels of survivability" in your initial question, so I had to make a response to help clarify your question. As for "life", there have been five mass extinctions (generally agreed terminology) in the history of the planet so far, and one of them (the Permian-Triassic extinction event) killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals).
Life wants to live.
-
No idea, never played anything he had anything to do with ... I've only seen one of his film-from-novel conversions (Hellraiser), and I haven't read any of his fiction, though the background info on the website seems pretty solid and not altogether uninteresting.
-
So how much did you win, Mets?PokerStars Tournament #55753950, No Limit Hold'em
Buy-In: $1.00/$0.20
18 players
Total Prize Pool: $18.00
Tournament started - 2007/07/17 - 21:08:02 (ET)
Dear metadigital,
You finished the tournament in 1st place.
A $7.20 award has been credited to your Real Money account.
Congratulations!
Thank you for participating.
-
I want dirt.
-
In either case the victim is still dead. In either case the intent is to kill. Lacking in ability to control one's emotions is not an excuse to commit murder.
I agree. Nor should it mitigate the penalty. Remeber, we are talking about finger that pulls the trigger, the hand that wields the knife so to speak. One person deliberately taking the life of another. If Sand and I got into a bar fight and one of us kills the other with a punch by freak circumstance, that is not murder, it is Manslughter, a lesser crime where you cause a death but did not intend to kill. If during the bar fight one of us pulls a weapon and kills the other, that is murder. I do not want to hear any "crime of passion" excuse then. The moment a weapon is pulled, the whole ball game changes.
I see you are not familiar with passion.
-
The Break-up: surprisingly well written (acted, directed) and accomplished little (reverse-) romcom. I think, of all the Friends, Jennifer Aniston has crafted the best acting career; I can't fault any of her choices.
TSL Restoration Project: The Phantom Deadline, READ FIRST POST BEFORE POSTING.
in Star Wars: General Discussion
Posted
I have other things to do in the meantime rather than just moan about a voluntary modification to a game that was released years ago. If and when it is released I will install the game and the mod, if only to see how the team have implemented their ideas.
As I have already played the game I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
Why you think that ridiculing the developers will have ANY (positive) effect is beyond sense, though I can suggest some other reasons for your posting.
To be clear, there is no edict that stipulates that everyone has to be nice, or even in agreement; but you cannot be rude (or defamatory) to others on this public forum of a private gaming company: