Amentep

I always heard the missing part as "where women grown and men plunder", but I don't really trust my own ears. Pretty sure the lyrics are: ♪ Do you come from a land down under / Where women glow and men plunder / Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder / You better run, you better take cover. ♫

Mamoru Samuragochi (who was credited for music on the Dual Shock version of RESIDENT EVIL and OMNIMUSHI: WARLORDS) considered by some to be Japan's Beethoven has announced that he actually had a ghost writer write his music as he was too deaf to do more than suggest themes. The ghost writer came forward (apparently distressed that their music was being used by one of Japan's figure skaters) and said that not only did Samuragochi hire him to compose music, but that Samuragochi can't compose music himself. Oh and that Samuragochi isn't actually deaf. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/arts/music/renowned-japanese-composer-mamoru-samuragochi-admits-fraud.html?_r=1 http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/02/winter-olympics-japan-figure-skating-composer-daisuke-takahashi/

Yeah I thought it was okay. I saw in the theaters. Wasn't a "buy on DVD" but I enjoyed it.

I imagine Misty Knight and Colleen Wing would be more likely to be supporting characters in the Netflix Daredevil/Jessica Jones/Iron Fist/Luke Cage/The Defenders series.

Ah I mis-read your sentence. And yeah Taskmaster would work in this show.

They've introduced at least 4 comic book characters that I know of (Franklin "Graviton" Hall, Donnie "Blizzard" Gill, SHIELD Agent Victoria Hand and now a version of Deathlok) in the series. I enjoyed this episode, but then I've enjoyed the series general - with some quibbles - so far.

But they can be prodigious reproducers, so I'd imagine that might offset the size issue.

Any music that combines carillon and canons can't be all bad.

The pro-Michael Bay argument, in a nutshell. If you enjoy it for some reason, I'm not sure it matters if others aren't as high quality as you might like. This applies whether its a noisy summer blockbuster or late December emo Oscar bait.

You are going to have to explain this one old boy, because I don't understand how removing the costs of cancer treatment from the equation does nothing to improve the healthcare bottom line. I took it to mean that if 100 people would die of cancer tomorrow and you cured cancer today those 100 people would still die - just not of cancer. The cost to keep them alive shifts from cancer treatment/management to whatever came next in the breakdown of the human system.

No one said we won't like it, but it isn't what was "promised". Wasn't it Kresselack who said "Promised? Promised? I made you no promise...". :D If the game is an isometric, real-time with pause party based fantasy role playing system and those things all make it "a successor to the IE games" you are getting what they "promised", even if its not what you actually wanted or thought you'd get. IMO. Mind you the game will always have two evaluated axises; "is it good" and "is it a good follow-up to BG/PST/IWD (or all three or any combination of the three)". But that's different from the "bait and switch" feeling I've gotten from the arguments so far. YMMV.

Perhaps. Honestly though I'd much rather like/dislike PE for what it is than for what I thought it should/could have been. Too much expectation will raise the bar so high nothing can ever live up to it.

Something that credibly captures the spirit of what went before. Which this doesn't. That doesn't mean it's going to be bad... but it does mean that Obz were being a bit lawyerly with their pitch. Really depends on your what you're looking for. Any game that met the keywords of "High Fantasy", "Isometric", "party based", "role playing game", "real time with pause" could argue that it was a spiritual successor of the IE games and not be incorrect (which is pretty much where I stopped with my expectations, too).

I can actually. The writing doesn't stand out much (as most of us agree), but that goes both ways. Not bad, not very good. Serviceable. In writing terms being unremarkable is in most cases worse than being actively bad. At least actively bad stuff like 2-dog/ Moira/ Jean-Luc Picard Uriel Septim is memorable, if the best you can say about writing is "well, it exists" then it may as well not. Your post was unremarkable. Please stop posting until you write something truly bad or a true pearl of wisdom. Is that how your logic works? As I already said, not all writing has to be memorable or noteworthy. As long as it is serviceable, it is OK. Just like in real life, on bulletin boards, in movies, in newspapers and, yes, even in books. As long as it keeps your interest long enough for you to find the gems, it's OK. I also disagree with your opinion that actively bad is better than serviceable. Actively bad ruins a game for me. Serviceable is just that, serviceable. Sometimes that's all that's needed, as long as there are some good parts too. Its probably worth pointing out that games have the benefit of providing entertainment outside of the writing. To be honest I've never felt positively or negatively about Bethesda's writing and have enjoyed playing the games. They're not perfect but they entertain me. Serviceable writing is problematic IMO only when writing is the only resource of the creation (ie novels, short stories). A movie can have spectacle or a game gameplay that makes the good/bad writing irrelevant if the other aspect is appealing.

I don't think anyone equated science with religion though. I certainly did not.

^the distance between two points being halved being infinite is true. The thing is its irrelevant unless your feet are themselves infinitely small (lim-> inf = 0). There's a limit to how small a distance can be that's relative to size of locomotion as you can only half any distance to a ratio of the size of the feet (or perhaps the motor coordination of the individual to shift their feet micro-distances) in a real-world scenario. In other words if you can't take a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 foot step, that distance is covered when you do step and the ability to divide infinitely is lost. or something...

Yeah, I'm not crazy about these kind of developments (much like New York's attempt to ban supersized drinks). They just seem wrongheaded.

I only disagree with the initial part about our senses, which I believe to be unique to each individual and are therefore a physical construct since there is no way of definitively knowing that what one person may taste or see is experienced the same as another would. A little bit edging towards solipsistic for me, but I understand your point.

Well again, the question to my mind is uncertain; either there is some underlying order (regardless of whether we can ever perceive it) or there isn't (and we can never see it). In the case of the later it is probably appropriate to say that there is no God's Eye view; however in the case of the former it would be theoretically possible to have a God's Eye view (whether the theoretical possibility could be translated into a real view for humanity is a different point, hence my point that what may be theoretically possible may only be achievable by a sufficiently omniscient "God"). Anyhow, to my mind the statement can't be definitive until more is known about the universe and whether there is something there to hang a hat on, so to say.

Good luck Alvin!

I'd expect that would be easier to do in a game that defines what area of the body got hit. When you're dealing with something more all-encompassing I'd imagine the abstraction might be difficult to handle on the extremes.

I think curling can be fun to watch. Also enjoy ski jump, bobsled, luge, skeleton, alpine, figure skating, speed skating and freestyle skiing. But I'll watch anything if its a good competition going on.

One thing I've always felt was that we're only capable of understanding that which our senses allow us to understand. Those things that lie outside of our ability to physically sense exist as a construct, that over time gets revised. So in that sense I buy Dr. Bronowski's idea that truth in science is really always "truth as we currently understand it". Mind you I find it ironic that in an article about the "Dangers of Certainty" the author points out that Dr. Bronowski insisted "there is no God's eye view" which in itself is a very particular certainty and perhaps one that should be taken rather lightly instead (I could agree with the argument, perhaps, that humanity's limited perceptions will never allow us a "God's eye" view, simply because we have to admit to the limitations of our own ability to perceive that around us that remains imperceptible or that ties in too closely to how our senses construct our thought). However if the universe is not random in its entirety, a God's eye view should be theoretically possible (if only practically possible for a sufficiently omniscient God)

I liked ME 1-3, but I'd say none of them ever really met up to my expectations after 1 had set them. 1 pretty much met my pre-playing expectations when I played it. That said, ME 3 is an enjoyable game, even if I think the ending doesn't work and is a big unsatisfying railroad.

I'm not convinced they're going to find that Diamond Staff with that level of effort put into their searches unless the Diamond Staff had arms and legs and runs or climbs past them.