I thought I heard that the MMORPG is being handled by a different studio and should have no effect the next single player Elder Scrolls game.

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

The first game to that began the transformation of teens worldwide (and especially American kids) into future serial killers-Desensitization of blood, guts, trauma, and the handing of weapons-Start 'em young, and they'll run straight into a wall-

Oh but viiiideo games don't promote violence and have NO effect on imprinting or the psyche...Yeah. Keep thinking that shit.

Wait till the suspension of disbelief regarding civilization and society slam them in the ass and watch 'em switch-on. All it will take will be a nudge-

According to the article, cloud cover, time of day etc had no effect on the success rate, things like that would drastically alter the results (evening them out) , if the shadow was the cause.

BTW, i'm still skeptical myself, as it seems pretty wild, but it sure is interesting if it is true that there is a constant, directional bias in the success rate..

Here's one for the sift: Because I sent an email from an address I had used as an alias on this site to my ex-wife's mother trying to track down my ex and children who, in violation of divorce decree, left the state without notifying me....
My ex-mother-in-law (crazy, paranoid academic) lied and said she felt threatened by my inquiry, made some shit up in a police report in King County, Washington and slapped me with a restraining order. For a fucking email, in which I neither threatened them or anyone they knew.

I am arrested for something completely unrelated 5 years later, charged with threatening the lives of policemen (fucking rant about how small their dicks were and their mommy-issues form the back of the cop car) the State of Texas is charging me with felony obstruction, and some intern in the DA's office preparing for the state's case, goes online, finds my alias and LOW AND BEHOLD-The state has in their hands my dossier from Videosift from every time the user had typed ANYTHING derogatory concerning police in general.

Big brother is up your ass and you people without balls and more common sense than myself....ain't got a fucking clue.

Thanks again Lucky, for eliminating those comments on said behalf, even though they have the hard-copy, which, I am told by my atty., would be of no effect either way to peruse
.-Freedom of speech is utter fucking bullshit in the United States of Now-Thanks to all the ineffectual pseudo-intellectual ass-sniffers who thinks republicans or democrats are any sort of concern or problem OR that your participation in their government machine can do anything but enslave you further. Play a losing game and you wake up in chains.

I'm kinna with the Dark Knight Joker at this juncture...Surprise me again with some motherfucking "change", eh??
*Freedom in the form of boots stamping on a human face forever, America.

PSA's which feature nonsensical situations (srsly... "I got this!".. /lol) would have almost no effect on the target audience which is already prone to completely ignoring handy advice from the older/wiser/more informed...

But if you are going to do a safety ad, do it proper...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1o_btLDt8

Every system has coercion.
The specifics may change, but they're all based around gaming the rules to get ahead, and preventing others from catching up.

Even if there are no government rules, you end up with private rules, set by the private owners of things you depend on, or things you have to work around or work with.

Deregulated systems are great, but they have one major flaw. Over time, you will end up with a monopoly. It's 100% certain. One business will always grow at least a tad quicker than others, and given enough time, will displace the others.
Especially when larger size creates beneficial economy of scale, and makes for prices that no one else can beat, which only accelerates the growth, leading to the inevitable.
This was the case for the U.S. in the "Rockefeller/Morgan/Vanderbilt-esque" days, and it is becoming the case to day in China.

(China is an amusing example. They have essentially wild-west capitalism and no effective labor laws. It's a bubbling brew of mega rich and mega poor. Much like pre-ww1-ish USA.)

Most economic crises we've had were the result of a few influential agents acting in their own best self interest, while their self interest did not coincide with national interest.

Local optima vs Global optima, mathematically speaking.

For example, oil speculation leads to higher oil prices, which means you can then sell your oil options for a good profit. It's quite good for the speculator.
It just isn't good for the rest of the nation, as higher energy costs drive down everyone else's profits/revenue.

In a more cartoonish sense, you can for example: get land real cheap by purchasing all the land around it, land-locking the access, and not agreeing to a public easement.
Then the land owner of the center-plot is holding worthless land, it's useless to anyone else, and the only possible customer is you.
You get to set the price, because it's you or nobody.
*Also, this is a real example that happened in my neighborhood.

-scheherazade

Fox News has no effect on my life.

When the gov't tramples the Constitution, that can have a big effect on everyone's lives.

I don't feel compelled to provide concrete data because I never took a concrete stance for or against scientific spending. Even when referencing military research it was because some people commented about cutting military spending as though that would have no effect on research funding.

My posts were to point out that the question of research with merit is a very difficult one to answer especially if "the greater good" is used as a criteria because "greater good" encompasses things outside of science and which may be much more immediate than the results of research (ie healthcare, employment, international affairs, etc.)

Those things being high impact and immediate could have a negative impact when using "greater good" in a simplified way because each person's cost-benefit analysis of research will vary depending on their circumstances. I can only assume that the greater good is some kind of aggregate so you cant ignore the individual.

In fact, in order to use the greater good as a measuring stick to even START this debate in a "concrete" way as you say, the following would have to be answered and I don't think you could get a room of people to agree on the answers to them much less a nation or planet.


Who is affected by the greater good?
What do we mean by greater good (greater outcome, greater meaning, greater support)?
How is it measured?
Over what period of time?
In what way and to what are we comparing it?
What terms is the final measure of the cost-benefit analysis? Dollars? Happiness? Health? Opinion?

You said your reaction is not fanatic, yet you're attacking me as a foe despite the fact I never actually rallied against ur stance.

This entire time I'm essentially saying "people need to be more aware of the larger picture when trying to answer this question because both sides seem to focus on the smaller parts that support them (and therefore come across semi-fanatic). Furthermore if a proper analysis is used then ud likely find some research doesnt cut the mustard and some is not as insignificant as it might have first seemed."

To which you've promptly replied each time explaining about how mistaken I am in my understanding of the importance of scientific research. I left a piece of your last post so you can see how aggressively you address me directly despite me never having said I disagree with, but only with the vigor of which people will argue scientific research even when the other side has a valid point...or in this case were not making the point ur arguing against to begin with.

Downvote.

The animation was pretty, but I'm all about storytelling, and the content wasn't even good for high school. Right from the beginning, what was the point of showing the showman as unable to get an audience? This had no effect later on, but it's half the show. Why weren't people impressed to begin with? Doesn't make sense. Why were they crying when he left? He didn't touch their hearts or improve their lives; he gave them things.

That's all meh. What really irked me was there's all sorts of clichéed assumptions made all the way through: all small dogs want to be big and/or male owners of small dogs want big dogs; children are unsatisfied merely imagining that sticks are airplanes; all women want to be big blonde princesses or to have fancy handbags, and all leaders want giant monuments built for them. Puh-leeze. It was less Needful Things than playing on tired stereotypes.

I especially didn't like the implication in the end that old bald people with bad backs are less trustworthy. I understand "ugly/old/bald" has been a common shorthand for "bad person" when there isn't enough time to develop a character properly, but inviting the audience to judge people based on their appearance is something I expect not to see in a modern production.

I thought it might be a more Hawking style ending - Gordon Levitt kills self, having no effect on Bruce Willis whatsoever in current reality. LOL @ Dr. Who and Emmett Brown.

Nope. I think all forms of regulation will have little to no effect given how widespread guns are. As I said, there will be no improvement in this lifetime for the US and people need to accept it.

Even in the impossible scenario that guns were largely banned nationwide and a generous guns for cash scheme was put in place, which is what has happened in some other countries, it would take decades for any meaningful effect to be felt.

Which is why my original post said that if you are genuinely concerned about this, there is no alternative to emigrating.

The issue is not Newtown, Virginia Tech, Collumbine or any freak killsprees of any of the deranged people you mentioned. The issue is the steady but reliably high murder rate enabled by the high supply of guns in the market.

These public incidents have done little to nothing more than giving pundits and casual observers an excuse to get high on their own cathartic tear gushing.

Arm yourself with knowledge, people, or succomb to ignorance found in conspiracies..

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

Nice try, Chris Rock. Chris doesn't understand that white people are pretty good at reading between the lines, at least when it comes to Obama's administration. It's Obama's handling of the current issues that have turned off the independent voters like myself, rather than swayed us to his side again.

Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have not earned him the chance for a second term, at this point in time. Perhaps in the near future Obama will become enlighted and unshackle himself from his leftist handlers: learning that in being a president one has to be more bipartisan to the issues. Cliton was an excellent President along those lines.

And the leftists on here have done a terrible job making your case for Obama in the months leading up to the election. Attacking the other candidate has nothing to do with making the case for your chosen candidate, and also has had no effect on the outcome.

To be fair, where is Chris Rock's special message to black voters? If a right-wing comedian had made a special message video to black voters in support of Romney, I'm sure people on here would have called attention to aspects of racism in that comedic message.