Amentep

I don't think its silly. When I was in high school one of the things EVERY teen boy was keenly aware of was the age of consent. And if you decided to date someone who was under that age, you were aware of what you were getting into. I'm not a fan of giving a 16 year old a free pass with a 15 year old just because they're close in age.

Debatable. Actually, it has BEEN debated. in Parliament. And in Congress. At length. By democratically elected representatives. Hence it's the law. In England the minimum age is 16 years. Now, at 15 years, 11 months, and 28 days I'd be willing to concede leniency. 13 years is not just wrong, it's obviously wrong. A 13 year old does not even look like they're old enough to give consent. What if one is 13 and the other 15? One is 15 and the other 16?

The sword has to love the smith, because without the smith, the sword wouldn't exist. While the creation of the sword may be a hot, hammer smashy affair, its not a sword until the smith is done with it. I never seem to have philosophical debates in my dreams. I did dream last night that me and two other people were being chased by a shark that swam through the air (like it was water) and which only we could see though. I managed to free one of my compatriots who'd been captured by the shark (it was laying across the top of a giant cup he'd gotten trapped in) by making it chase me through a crowded high school.

I watched them in the order they came out in, and enjoyed them each for what they were.

Good point. Anyone remember that collector who went into the British library and defaced rare books so his own copies would be even rarer? What a douche. This guy? The weird thing is his story reminds me a bit of William Hope Hodgson's Carnacki short-story, "The Find". Mind you in my brief employ of a Library most people just seemed to cut pictures of the famous out of Rolling Stone.

That's what my brother suggested; not sure what to pros vs cons of the modified pushup is though.

Hopefully this doesn't get the thread too far off track, but... I used to enjoy doing situps/pushups as a part of my exercise routine, but after I broke my ankle, I find it impossible to get into proper position for pushups due to a certain immobility of one of my toes also injured in the fall. Does anyone know of some way to modify pushups so as to get their benefit without necessarily putting the same kind of toe mobility requirements on it? Putting all the pressure on one foot isn't the way to go. Given that I'm now at the heaviest I've ever been, I really need to get back into a routine but I'm a bit stumped on this one.

Doesn't Nestle own about five hundred different brands now? They're like the AOL/TimeWarner of foods. Off the top of my head, Perrier (amid a few dozen other bottled waters), Ralston/Purina (including Alpo, Friskies), Nestle (naturally), Maggi, Taster's Choice, Cereal Partners Worldwide (a partnership with General Mills which includes putting out GM cereals outside of the US, like Cheerios, and manufacture in the US of some products, like H

I'd be less worried about someone going stabby with the scissors and more worried they were planning on cutting something out of the books or magazines. Although, in my experience, they usually just go up a few floors and tear it out anyhow.

Watched PANDORUM. Pretty entertaining film, let down a bit by an ending that doesn't quite work the way I think the producers wanted it to.

Asked my brother a bit about Stop Motion filming since he's actually done some stop motion shorts: ***** What makes the "jerkiness" is two things: a) each image in a Ray Harryhausen flick or other model work (Nightmare Before Christmas, for example) is being shot still as each image is shot. Since there isn't any motion, the eye picks that up subtly as being not quite normal. For example, look at your finger. If you move it back and forth rapidly, to your eye it blurs. If you filmed each discrete motion on a camera and showed it sped up to keep the same pace as you wiggling your finger, it would look like a still image moving rapidly, without blur, and thus it would look unnatural and jerky. b) That's the main thing, but I think also poor animation that doesn't reflect natural movement well also can contribute to the jerky look. Like, with Ray Harryhausen, or Willis O'Brian in King Kong, they were great character animators, and their motion looks more realistic than, for instance, the animated creatures done in Jack the Giant Killer, which were done by younger, less experienced animators. There is a way to make it less jerky, and it has been used. For Dragonslayer, they developed a way to create motion in the model when it was needed, so it blurs naturally as it flies, and that was one of the secrets as to why it looks so awesome! I think the technology continued to be used throughout big budget films of the 80's (like the alien creature at the end of Howard the Duck, things like that), but I don't think it has been used much as CGI rose to prominence and after the blue screen work of the 80's gave way to more modern special effects. Human animation would follow the same principles as model animation, there really wouldn't be any major difference, except that as human beings, people would recognize what they are looking at are humans, and they'd pick up any differences in motion pretty well. Don't forget one good example of human animation: . [Mike Jittlov] actually shot and animated himself for the film, so just imagine doing that!

Wait, the companions in Fallout 2 actually did something based on what tactics you gave them? I never experienced that. Seemed like regardless of what I requested of them, they were mostly there to accidentally shoot me, get accidentally shot by me, or to inexplicably use the melee weapon in combat instead of the gun I gave them despite me telling them to equip and use it, setting up a scenario where they'd rush in get shot to death by everybody in the firefight.

I hope they're wary of putting a weather controlling gravity machine on their Moonbase. Those things are just begging for trouble (as are global transmat systems).

[quote name='H

They must have missed the "assuming this is legit" caveat in his message.

Resident Evil Outbreak - main theme - main theme - credits music - main theme - "Smaller God" by Darling Violetta

I'm an incessant restarter as well. Sometimes I've restarted so much I've had to go play something else for awhile because I want to change the character but can't stomach playing through the intro again.

Count me as well in the committed to buy category. The thing is, since I'm going to buy it whenever it comes out, when it comes out doesn't matter to me so long as its still coming out. The only effect would be if I have to delay spending a large amount of time with it or not based on non-gaming stuff.

I'm pretty sure that Michael Foster is a product evaluator for Sony Computer Entertainment of America (SCEA), not Sega. John Merlino in the AP paragraph would be Sega's person (Development Services Director at Sega of America I believe).

By advocating a UHC, thats exactly what youre saying. I'm not advocating UHC, and I'm not sure if the government was totally restructured (in a sense what Gorgon's line of thought is) for example that it would cost you more money (although realistically the idea of the government taking a hard look at how it spends money is silly). As far as UHC is concerned I can see both sides of the debate - partially because I've *been* on both sides of what the debate discusses.

I'm not sure dressing like some sort of weird pantomime hexaped really impresses anyone. Besides which Shoggoths are supposed to be formless, bubbling protoplasmic beings that are faintly luminous with random temporary eyes forming over its body as it slithered around, so I'm not really sure that picture is a good example of proper dress-up anyhow.

And with all respect to you, so what? Explain to me why that should affect my bank account? Where does this sense of entitlement come from in this country? "I dont want a big bill, someone else pay it". Well, I dont want a mortgage, someone else pay it. I dont want to drive a Hyundai, someone else buy me a Porche. College tuition! To hell with that, YOU pay to educate my kid. *deep breath* [/rant] EDIT: I feel I should point out that that rant wasnt aimed at you Tep, just "in general". I never said it should take (more) money from you; again I felt it was worth it to feel secure in my health and I paid for it out of pocket. That doesn't mean there shouldn't or couldn't be a viable alternative. Or that medical costs couldn't be more reasonable. At the very least the options should be looked at before being rejected out of hand.

I've always wanted just...you know reasonable clothes for my mages. I've always felt a bit weird when the town peasants are dressed less goofily than my mage. I'm a mage, damnit, I shouldn't be jealous of peasant clothes!

Well I guess the thing is that if one is inclined to believe they have something that they'll recover from naturally, they'll be more inclined to not risk getting a big bill. The thing is that I'm sure if any of them knew they were dying they'd have been more inclined to get the bill over the alternative. The idea behind UHC is that people will be more inclined to see a doctor without having to debate the "is it serious vs how much it'll cost". Now UHC may not actually do that, or there may be better ways to achieve that, but I think that's the basic idea. Now when I was uninsured and got a kidney stone I went to a doctor, since I knew that if the kidney stone was large enough not to be passed naturally not only would I be in a lot of pain, I could risk my kidney's shutting down. So peace of mind I guess was worth wiping out my life's savings to that point (and make no mistake, being uninsured at the time it did just that).

EDIT: Oh, I see what you are referrring to: Did you know that skydivers have a 100% higher risk of dying from rapid deceleration then non-skydivers? You have to compare the population of skydivers who die from rapid deceleration vs those who don't plus look at those who aren't skydivers who die from rapid deceleration falls from height (and I suppose decide which category a skydiver who dies from a fall from height that isn't related to skydiving fits into) and I'm not convinced that would come out to 100% higher, although certainly it would be higher. As skydiving can be classed as "risky behavior". Arguably, not going to a doctor regularly for checkup and evaluation could also be considered a "risky behavior", thus leading to the increase in deaths related to medical conditions that could be caught at earlier stages. But my whole point is that without the methodology for how the numbers are determined, its a bit hard to argue the validity of the conclusions (which is a common problem with news articles but presumably where the numbers are coming from indicates a certain amount of peer review of the methodology).