ITOS

Best of luck with the changes!

I kind of get where you are going and I will refrain from putting these in the regular image library, but by saying that it is see-through you kind of avoided the main question about skin-tight clothing. Attaching another example.

On the image uploading page you exemplify "wearing so little that they might as well be naked" with "1 pixel wide thongs", but I wonder how skin-tight closing is judged by moderators? Just like 1 pixel wide thongs, skin-tight clothing can make so the character may as well be naked. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of such skin-tight clothing in the regular (non-supporter) image library. Still, wanted to ask before I post anything of that nature. Better safe than sorry. Attaching an example. Always easier to discuss with examples at hand. In it, the character is clearly clothed but still has her breast very clearly defined through the fabric. (EDIT: Removed attached picture. Guessing this part of the forum isn't protected by any filter.)

Nope.

Aurielius sound like some ancient greek or roman guy who probably did something with politics and then got assassinated. Because everyone got assassinated back then. It's true. That is why none of them are alive today.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/ItosAtio/NC-Pony-1.png Needs more ponies.

I would be fine with paying $10 for a mod that was comparable to an official DLC like the ones for Fallout. I would not be fine with hundreds of $1 mods than adds one armor or bunch of tweaks. IF they decide to bring money into modding then I hope that they are highly restrictive so that only serious modding teams can make money of it.

Same. I tried to do the verifying a couple of times without success. Now it seems like Steam is updating the game by downloading the something big.

Whenever I try to do any crafting or sit down my character just stand still, completely immobilized, for a second. Going through my save I have discovered that I have to go very very far back for the animations to work again. Reloading would be a huge inconvenience and by no means guarantees I can continue without problems. Does anyone have any suggestions or maybe have the same problem?

Essentially, he makes money from talking about how bad our effect on the climate is but seems to do very little himself to lower his own impact. There's some other stuff as well but this is the basic. EDIT: Huh. Missed page 5. Odd.

Thing is, he may very well believe this. He might even be right, even if the chance for that is very small given the irrational behaviour of humans. I think we too often accuse others of malicious or selfish behaviour when it's actually about a strong belief. Too many people (myself included) speak with too much certainty and too many let uncertainty lead to paralysing. In my opinion, more dynamic is needed on both fronts but I digress.

Your point? How's this for a psychological mechanism: Tell a lie often enough, give it a load of media attention, bring in some self-appointed experts, bring in an ex-politician as spokesman and people might just start believing you. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple. There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see? My post wasn't so much an argument for or against either case but rather a notation of a disturbing phenomenon that plays into this debate as well as others. In a way it ties very well in with the rest of your post, in a way you may not realize. Your description of how to convince the public and convey your own brand of truth is interesting. It's pretty much the same strategy the tobacco industry used decades ago. It's also a double edged sword in this discussion since it is equally applicable to both sides. People who denies human effects on the climate has been show to cherry pick data, make shady interpretation and develop strategies for handling media. Given two corrupt systems and an inability to interpret the base data, how is the public (and politicians) supposed to determine who is trustworthy? In such cases, I prefer to go by majority. Given the extreme consequences in this particular case, even a slim majority would be enough to encourage me to play it safe. I do not gamble with millions of lives for the sake of burning fossil fuel for another 100 years.

Not quite true. Our ability to extract the energy from these alternative sources is lacking but the amount of solar energy that COULD be collected is way way more than we need. Personally, though, I have more hope in nuclear energy. Not the unsafe bombs we use today, mind you, but ones that work on other principles. A LFTR for example:

As chance would have it, I just watched a documentary on why people doesn't trust established experts and rather goes with alternatives that has doubtful scientific value. The documentary summed it up to being due to scientist not being used to having to defend their work in the new media that has emerged with the internet. Personally, I think that psychological defence mechanisms may play an important part as well and is much harder to counter than media. I believe many would feel like being accused of being stupid if you explained to them how irrational humans really are.

Too me, you sound very dismissive about these theories. Given that halting the emissions of these chemicals has slowed down the depletion of ozone and lead to predictions about the recovery of the ozone layer, wouldn't you say that these theories has substantial merits? How many of those banned chemicals have later been proven to have no effect on ozone? Just wondering since I interpret your use of quotation as an indication that you do not believe them to be bad for the ozone layer. EDIT: Got me thinking about what would happen if scientist (the people with the best understanding of the problem) ran the show instead. As the consensus on humans effect on the environment is that something has to be done yesteryear, I would expect a much stronger more rapid response than what we see from politicians today. The exact working of how emissions should be lowered may not have an optimal solution but business as usual won't cut it.