Amentep

Regardless of the hopelessly romantic prism through which you are reviewing history, are you sure that using this guy as an example of what you are saying is a good idea? The guy who peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union? Yes, that might be quite the good example. He didn't exactly intend to dismantle the Soviet Union. If you payed attention in history class you'd know that. He thought he was pressing the button for "Soviet Union 'Country Tea' Dispenser" and much to his surprise found out he'd actually pressed "Soviet Union Country Dismantler". Such an easy mistake to make, but not really one you expect from a veteran politico.

IIRC, It has been suggested that language learning in the brain is different for early childhood primary language development and learning additional languages later in life There is a theory, again IIRC, that suggests specific trauma to the area of the brain that houses the primary language "storage" may force the brain to use the "additional language" storage when the individual attempts to communicate. As Gfted1 suggests, the girl in question has studied the language (and watched TV/movies in German) so possibly has the material in her "secondary language storage" at her disposal to use to communicate. So when she tries to talk she does, but in German. As far as knowing dead languages as Gfted1 asks - hard to say. I could say for example, that while I can't read hieroglyphs or speak ancient Egyptian, I have read books that detail both hieroglyph meanings, translations into words and pronunciation of ancient Egyptian (as best guessed). So it could be theoretically possible for my brain to pull that information out if necessary (or even unnecessary but just happened because of brain trauma). Without knowing specifics of any given case of people waking up speaking Babylonian or Egyptian, I'd be loathe to think they didn't at least at some point come across the tools to speak the language (if the stories are true).

I dunno, never played the first one and - if its a straight shooter probably won't play the new one. But can't say I'm offended by its existence.

The RAF fighter planes aren't as clear as the saucer in the video, perhaps implying it is much closer to the camera than the planes. But most suspiciously, the footage conveniently cuts before the supposed arrival of the RAF in the saucer's space. I'd say hoax.

Might be the only thing to get me to wearing bulky headgear (I like my headband with a +1 to perception).

But for the big gun expert, his mininukes are mininukier! I think this is the sort of thing that leads to being able to shoot a rifle into the head of anyone from 3 feet and have it take a dot of life off if you have no skills in the weapon. To be honest, since combats a bit of an abstraction its always been something I just rolled with.

He *is* losing the all important "Developer" tag (maybe). The Horror!

Because I had the same problem on 2 different PCs (and two different games), my guess is: a) It is fairly common, if not universal b) The game has a grudge against x64 systems and/or nvidia 200 series cards c) I'm just plain and simple unlucky. Along with a whole bunch of other people However, I fear the same thing: No changes to the engine. It'd be time consuming; time Obsidian doesn't have... One can always hope, though. It locks up on the 360 as well as my PC. I can understand different configurations of hardware presenting a problem with PC development, but the 360...? Well looking away from crashes, has there been any word about whether they'll look at tweaking how the game renders skin tone? Its a bit annoying to have a multihued PC because the clothes I'm wearing doesn't actually reflect the color I chose on my face (which was hard to gauge anyhow in that little dark screen) EDIT: Just to be clear, I mean when I'm wearing armor my arms, for example, are often a different tone than my face. But also certain skin types seem to be naturally multihued for no real reason.

Yeah the crashes are pretty wild. I'd forgotten how many times the game just died, but upon replaying there's nothing more frustrating than that (particularly when one hasn't been liberal with the saves). Of course there are other bugs - the flying protectrons, the stretched figures and whatever happened to me in Shalebridge (after which the game stopped recognizing ramps so I couldn't go to the second floor of anything and had to reload a save game from a day prior) that hopefully won't be present in FO:NV (since they never appear to be addressed in FO3).

The engine supports weights down to the ten thousandths place in data but it only displays weights to the tenths. You know I could have sworn I'd actually seen a 1lb pencil in the game but it appears I was mistaken. Its listed as 0lbs (which I guess means a fraction, as opposed to -- meaning no weight).

I was excited about, then I wasn't, then I was, then it was delayed and I stopped thinking about it but am getting excited again now that its getting closer to coming out. Obsessed, never.

To be fair... - - -

Really now. Weirder than carrying around multiple suits of armor along with 20 guns and a cornucopia of random "stuff"? Because...somehow a person could actually carry multiple suits of armor? I prefer the 1lb pencil over that, though I think there's got to be a better way for both sides of the argument. Actually no I don't think its weirder than that. Both are weird (and I say this as someone who recently carried about 4 outcast power armors some distance to store in my Megaton House). As I mentioned above I think no upper level limit to encumbrance is also weird! I was carrying 530 lbs and still walking and shooting! Still enjoy the game, but its got some weird elements in it. Ideally I'd rather some negligible weight stuff (like pencils) and an uppercap on how much you can carry that you can't move with or pick up past. Ideally IMO no one should be regularly carrying around 220 lbs of gear anyhow particularly not for long distances...80 is probably going to be a problem for an average person I'd think.

I think if they can't go under a pound that certain items with a weight well under a pound should be weightless rather than a pound personally. Picking up a 1lb pencil and having it make you encumbered is just weird.

I watched Planet Terror again recently and it IS amazing.

When I briefly ran a webcomic it was hosted by other people so I can't help you there, alas. In fact given that I'd like to start it back up, I need to start figuring out how to host the thing myself. However I was a total scanner & clean up digital than tablet guy. I gather from online reading is that the Bamboo Pen is supposed to be an entry level type tablet - more general use than art focused. But given that this is kind of a fun sideline, it might be worth looking into. Slashgear's Bamboo pen & touch review

I hated the Fallout 1/2 inventory, although as you say FO2 was slightly less hair-pulling. I don't mind limitations on where you can place stuff with a paper-doll system. I mean if the repair system doesn't require me to carry around 5 missile launchers than certainly having to have the missile launcher in the over-the-shoulder back location would make sense. One inventory thing I found odd was that there doesn't actually appear to be an upper limit to how much you can carry. At one point I had around 50 pistols and about 60 rifles in my inventory. My carry weight was around 530 lbs, but I was over-encumbered at 200. There's no way I should have been legitimately walking around with 530 lbs, much less shooting enemies in the face while slow-walking. So has there been anything said about a max carry weight for FO:NV?

If nothing else can you announce when you'll announce when the official announcement will be?

Ah...hadn't heard about the lawsuit. I had been kinda surprised that a 4E game hadn't been announced already (from some publisher or another) and was wondering why...

Wait, you don't like carrying around countless teddy bears, spoons, plates, and whatnot for the junk gun? In playing FO3 again, I'm collecting Teddy Bears for my house in Megaton. And intact Garden Gnomes. Too bad its not easier to place these things. Frankly inventory management is one of those abstractions that I usually just like to roll with however the game presents it, so not a big issue to me. A totally weight based system like Fallout is just as non-realistic as playing inventory tetris with a space limit, IMO.

Or at least

Good luck w/the new gig!

She growled and then tried to kill me just like every other darkspawn in the game. Hespith, Branka's former lover explains the Broodmothers - which I thought was actually one of the creepier parts of the game, personally. I can. He's aretarded. he's evil. he's a scumbag. he's a peice of crap. I blame because he's probably the most retarded thing in the whole game. He was blinded by his hate toward Orlesians, but atleast he didn

I've never played it, but the manuals are hilarious.

So, God is a fatalist? Fatalism would imply that time matters and reality is directed towards a known outcome; but from God's perspective time doesn't exist because he created time. There is no set outcome (a tenant of fatalism) but for God the outcome exists because all that time encompasses has already done so. Its really Compatibilism. Ohhhh . . . so he is a nihilist. What makes you think that? If God exists and created us, then surely that is the very definition of life given purpose and intrinsic value, is it not? I don't think nihilism really works with theology. Umm. If God is possessed of both omniscience and the quality of existing outside of time you ascribe to him (I agree with that, as it makes everything even more absurd), it all amounts to Him dropping a stone and then kicking it afterwards, in punishment for falling. He would have known before creating Satan that he would disobey and be punished. Ergo, no free will at all -- either He cannot predict what His creations will do (back to the irresistible force paradox), or He created Satan knowing he would betray Him. Of course, if God exists outside of the realm of logic... Knowing that Satan will betray him does not equal creating Satan to betray him. That he creates a creature that of its free will will betray him and that he knows that Satan will, is and did betray him does not negate that it was Satan who chose to betray him. The thing you're assuming is that God created Satan to do something. Knowing that someone will do something because it has already happened is different from knowing that someone will do something because you've given them no choice. Imagine you invent a time machine and go in the future and find out all the details of your future son's life. You then travel back in time and produce the son in question - have you robbed him of his free will just because you know what he'll choose to do? Or do you know the result of his free will thanks to knowledge based in being able to move outside of time? To my mind the son is still free to choose the path he wants; you just happen to know what the end result of those choices will be before he makes them. If then your son at the age of three needs to be punished, have you created him just so you punish him? Or do you punish him because of the choices he made? Certainly I think the later. Knowledge of outcomes to my mind does not negate the free will choices made prior to the outcomes - hence the philosophy of compatiblism. You're mileage may vary, of course.