WizardOfAtlantis
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WizardOfAtlantis
-
-
I'm starting to think a nice compromise would be to have all the traditional attributes at start and let them have some overall effect on your abilities, but then pretty much leave them alone for the rest of the game. Maybe a tiny increase here or there, but that's it. A tiny increase that doesn't really effect too much one way or another, and perhaps only in your major attributes.
Maybe that would be a nice mod idea to let the new mechanics do what they want, but to give a starting-out/historical background type of a feel to one's in-game persona. As the stats were in Oblivion, they weren't realistic at all. D&D is more realistic. By the time you're 18, you pretty much have 90 percent of your stats already worked up, if not more. You can get stronger for a few more years, or whatever with practice, but only a bit, taken the fact that a Fighters' Guilder is already going to have had a physical life, just like a Mages' Guilder is going to have spent a large part of his or her childhood in a library. Usually.
Basically, I still want the traditional attributes...but I don't want to raise them too much, and overall after that point of just "having them", maybe this new system will be more realistic.
-
Welcome to the world of the professional Tool.
They're not journalists in the sense of the word that people expect, i.e. an independent free- and critical-thinking objective person devoid of bias and working for their own particular and personal agenda (more or less).
No, these guys are press agents for Bethesda (whether they realize it or not, and I hope they do because otherwise...sheesh), and that's it. They're propaganda agents. You won't see them asking uncomfortable questions like, "Just what in the Oblivion Planes were you thinking when you DESTROYED THE ROLE-PLAYING OF A PERSONA BY DEMOLISHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF ATTRIBUTES, YOU DIMWIT?"
Of course, they could leave out the dimwit part, but they wouldn't even get that far. If someone ever did, they'd never see the inside of a Beth door ever again.
-
Death
-
whizz
-
rifle
-
I will now bury this information deep within my mind and forget about it for a while of course. :wub:
Exactly. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif I mean, do you really want to keep up with these video blogs or just leave it all to surprise? How can you forget something that cool? Thankfully they're very good at giving you a taste...of nothing...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/unsure.gif
But didn't he say something like "in a few years" but since it's already 2011, it means by now that it's only a little over a year away...
-
I will try and cease to derail the debate (your words) and tell you that although I agree one hundred percent with what you say regarding the behaviour of the CIA, I'm not entirely certain that it is germane to this particular subject of Homeland Security and spying on your neighbors.
No, no, it's okay. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/smile.gif (and I've hijacked your font as I've grown to like it! thankshttp://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif)
I only brought up the derailing thing because I myself was being accused of derailing the argument (because I guess I was being too cryptic and didn't explain my reasoning well enough, hence that very long post). As for the CIA, I only included them to show that there are those (not necessarily the CIA) making decisions that are grey and how that greyness can be manipulated in the Grand Scheme.
I didn't consider any of this derailing the argument, actually. I'm surprised it was directed at me, that's all, and I just wanted to swing the mirror around a bit just to show that I could have.
Much of my personal opinion of the CIA in this particular matter is very well summed up like this:
I have somewhat mixed feeling as to CIA / NSA activities overseas. I see them as our proactive defense which means stopping our terror opponents before they get up enough steam to carry out another attack, this game is definitely being fought without the Marquis of Queensbury rules of conduct. I do not think that we can apply a totally civilian perspective to what is after all a very dirty war. Though I should say that once we have them in custody and have neutralized their current operations we should bring them to trial, I have no conflict with the concept of a Military Court being just. However detention without ANY trial is antithetical to our American values. There is such a thing as a Senate Oversight Committee to reign in excesses of our intelligence services and am reasonably sure that given the composition of the committee it will not gloss over violations of the CIA / NSA charters.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif
The rest of Aurielius's post is there, didn't want to make it seem *invisible*, but the color scheme is what it is...
There are dirty and almost entirely thankless jobs that have to be done for a particular agenda to be met, and I'm glad the CIA is there to do their part. As to what they get away with and how much darkness they have to shoulder to do it, those are judgment calls left for others to make.
-
If the 'debate' continues to derail down these paths, I'll have to withdraw as well. I'm here to debate the topic of national security and various aspects thereof.
As for my qualification of words, I don't think you have quite the authority to argue with Mr. Merriam Webster. The phrase I used was direct-from-dictionary and then I placed it into the context of the document in question. So either you're saying I'm actually right and it might not be entirely correct because of changing meanings or you're saying I'm right because the dictionary definition is the definition. I'll let you decide and get back to me.
This is long, so please bear with me or accept my apologies, folks, whichever way you want to take it.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/smile.gif
Who isn't debating? I'm not arguing the definition. I'm using the definition, but I will explain better. I've mentioned points that no one's even taken up for illustrating the case in point if we want to talk of derailing but I don't. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/rolleyes.gif However, it seems I must explain myself better, so I will try. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/smile.gif You people are getting really touchy. I thought I was using enough smiley faces as I was trying to get my point across as I know this was a touchy issue but obviously I was mistaken so I apologize for not explaining myself better to begin with. Do you want a debate o do you want everybody to just agree with you automatically?
I happen to agree with you but I'm still debating.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif Or better, I am trying to widen the vista as that is part of my Work in life.
As for the definition, and not that it was necessary, but just to be sure, I already looked up several to find definitions of the word and they all come down to the same thing, of course. The nuance that I was speaking of, then, is within the definition of the words used to define the word itself. See my point? Am I the only one that has at one time in life found it strange and a bit mind-boggling that we use words to define words? A self-referencing set of definitions? Maybe, I guess, but that's important. You/anyone can't just bring up a definition and think that your/anyone's particular perceptions of the words used to describe another word are the same perceptions that other people use when a definition has multiple parts. It's just not that simple.
I'm not playing around here, people. This is serious stuff even if I was joking about it earlier. It's not my fault that the actual seriousness isn't perceived and some of you think it's just "games" and "derailing". Maybe my illustration was too vague, at first, but I'll get to that below. It's not derailing, because it's the shadings of a definition of a single word that say if people can legally go to war or not these days. The lives of millions of people rest on just this kind of thing.
The whole spiel, and the power of words is this: in order to get away with some action, a governing body has to have some claim at legitimacy and correctness in order to maintain a public figure, right? Right, so we then establish various conditions that have to be met in order to satisfy the overall condition of legitimacy. So then, it all comes down to drawing lines for what equals what. We all agree on this, I'm sure, proving we know this power.
Invasion: invading/entering, enemy, especially army. Those are the 3 fundamental pieces. The emphasis ("especially") is placed on the "army" part, and ten or however many handfuls of people do not in everyone's mind constitute an army. They may be members OF an army but they are not AN army. The emphasis of "especially" is used because that's the part that's the real clincher especially in a lot of people's minds. "Especially by an army" not "especially by members of an army" because it is literally the whole/the quantity that constitutes "an army".
Now, no one is arguing that they "entered" or that they were the "enemy" on September 11, or previously in the terrible attacks that they perpetrated. But to some people, and I do not limit myself to people observed on this forum, it's the army part that is important in their minds. They see a large group (an army) physically invading/entering their homeland. That is why it is called Homeland Security, to invoke those ideals of the safeness of one's home. Very appropriate. It's the other part that not everyone agrees on. I've seen other people mention this online in saying that September 11 was "technically" an invasion, and they put it that way, with technically in quotes. That shows that they admit to the extension of the definition to that case but don't completely agree with it on all levels. Just like I said before.
My personal opinion is that it was technically and legally an invasion, but even more correctly, it was a coordinated attack, a tactic, and not an "invasion" as it exists in the common Imaginarium, such as the likes of 1066 Britain (which I cited), D-Day, Hannibal crossing the Alps into Italy, etc. They are not mutually exclusive.
And regardless, I don't see anyone coming back to any of the points that I personally pointed out about the illegitimacy of the actions of the CIA in kidnapping people. That's not opinion, that's fact. I could easily say myself that someone is derailing the debate because they're not answering what I've put forward illustrating this very principle.
Why did I mention what I mentioned? Because illegal actions are simply an extension of the "grey" that I was talking about that was is used for the word "invasion" as well. They go together. There is legitimacy in Guantanamo Bay, don't get me wrong . But there is also consciously-manipulated grey, and I realize this is a difficult thing at times to perceive, but it's that of which I am speaking, it is to the point, and I have given illustrated examples as to when the very process of manipulating the grey includes the black which is added to the white to get that very color proving that the manipulation exists (in my mind at least).
-
RZ1029, you're just playing word games. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wink.gif Like many other hard-liners, I might add, when they want to prove their point--and tha'ts okay, just realize that it's not *really* The Truth, just one facet of the technicality.
Such jibes as that are precisely why I dropped out of the debates threads. Anyone who is a "hard-liner", particularly ones who can speak up very well for themselves and very often get the better of the prevailing left-leaning liberal majority on here (who of course must be right), get poked at and accused of being either nasty, playing games (whether with words or whatever) or ill educated rednecks who are led by the nose by the right wing media. As someone once said, round about this time of year quite a number of years ago "What is truth?"
As far as the original topic goes, I think spying on your neighbours stinks , but then so does the level of surveillance we have over here in the UK. Surveillance cameras everywhere and people think they are there to protect them. Ye gods. Even with all the surveillance we have, the police still manage to gun down the wrong man from time to time.
However, as we have shared with the USA the dubious honour of being long time terrorist targets, it certainly does feel like an invasion. At least you can send the suspects to Gitmo. We can't get rid of the beggars because deporting them to where they came from might put them in danger. Aw, diddums.
Ginnyfizz, I was just thinking of you! I'm so glad you chimed in.
The "jibes" are to point out the duality of the impression of a word as it is "used" in a modern, legal sense, and that you can easily switch meanings by its intention, from one to the other, which i thought I had illustrated with my last comment.
Don't forget that I'm pretty much a hard-liner myself, though I might not always seem like it as I'm willing to forgive more up front, though our ending impressions very often coincide because I happen to agree with him on many things.
I simply do not think we've been "invaded" since 1812, nor would I count millions of immigrants, either...though they point to a better case of invasion than any handful of terrorists, in any real, pragmatic sense.
-
RZ1029, you're just playing word games. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wink.gif Like many other hard-liners, I might add, when they want to prove their point--and tha'ts okay, just realize that it's not *really* The Truth, just one facet of the technicality.
I personally feel more secure in the issue. For me, it takes more than 10 people to invade a country of 300 plus million inhabitants.
-
I would call 9-11 an invasion.
I also never called them prisoners of war, nor does that excerpt say anything about prisoners of war.
They are criminals in the fact that they were conspirators in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, including the failed attempt at the White House.
And as they are NOT prisoners of war, as you stated, the Geneva Convention does not apply and we are not bound by it, legally, at any rate.
The US have never been invaded, man. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif Attacked does not equal invaded. The closest time to the US being invaded under even the most extreme definition was in WWII when those Nazi spies disembarked on the East Coast from their sub. And there were what? Three of them? That's not an invading force. Ask King Harold what an invading force is. He got a good look at one when we landed at Pevensey.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif
Then, if they're not prisoners of war, you can't just kidnap people without time in court. You can only suspend rights in war, right? and there is no war against British civilians or residents in Italy (see below).
The 5th 6th 7th and 8th are in clear violation as well. These are for people who are not proven to be enemies after all.
No, they are not. Gotta be a U.S. citizen or have your feet planted on U.S. soil. Territories and military bases do not qualify in this instance.
The government could pretty much put anyone they wanted in gitmo without much reason.
No, they cannot. U.S. citizens must be given due process when on U.S. soil. This also applies to aliens, legal or not. That's why the lock up Gitmo was established.
The point is that that place was set up to specifically go around the law, and that's what they use it for by and large. Or they did, before the exposes forced them to farm out the work. You can tell by its track record. There have been exposes/documentaries on this...CIA kidnappings of citizens of other countries, or of people with legal visas, and then hustling them out under cover in CIA-hired private planes on American and British military bases. Those kidnapped have ended up in Middle-Eastern allies' prisons, where the torture is overt as opposed to what happens in Guantanamo Bay, or they were flown in the past to Guantanamo Bay.
There was a very clamorous case here in Italy, where when it finally went to court, the regional head of the CIA was found guilty of violating I don't remember how many national and international laws. The cases in England have stirred up controversy because they were using British airstrips and thereby implicating the British gov in those said illegal actions.
I'm growing confused here. What's the problem with Gitmo? It's just a prison. We have tons of those. Unless it's got people who aren't guilty in it or something.
All that above. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif
And you're right. I'm sure there are people there with connections to terrorism. There are also cases of people having been there for long periods of time with no provable connections whatsoever. And yeah, we have a lot of prisons, bases, etc. The fact that this one is tainted with nefariousness makes you wonder why it was necessary in the first place when the structures are already in place to handle any legal necessity....just like making an app to warn ze Homeland Zecurity when you can simply dial 911.
-
Chaotic Good Human Sorcerer (6th Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength- 18
Dexterity- 18
Constitution- 15
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 15
Charisma- 16
Alignment:
Chaotic Good- A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit. However, chaotic good can be a dangerous alignment because it disrupts the order of society and punishes those who do well for themselves.
Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class:
Sorcerers- Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.
Personal Note: Overall, I'd say it's pretty darn accurate. And that's...pretty cool.
-
It will be, in its own way.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/yes.gif
Thanks for the link, Vagrant0!
...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/ohmy.gif...3D...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/blink.gif...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/woot.gif
-
roof
-
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
UNLESS... yep, condition met. Legality achieved.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Hmm... they're just being detained, they aren't being punished. There's a difference, and blowing up civilian targets has been illegal for a while now, in case you were curious.
Two problems, though I agree with the fact that extrapolating American conditions off American soil is just not possible to do.
The first is that the US isn't under the case of either rebellion or invasion.
The second is that those prisoners (in Guantanamo, right?) are being tortured often enough, from some accounts (documentaries) I've seen, and they're not just being detained. And regardless, they're not prisoners of war because first you have to have an actual war and you can't declare a war on nobody, and that's what the "War on Terror" is. It's a war on nobody, or anybody that's handy. Take your pick. So, since there is no war, those aren't prisoners of war. Technically speaking, of course, and as far as I understand it.
-
Seriously you need to watch this.
Well, she really hits the nails on the head, doesn't she? Thanks for that video. I couldn't turn it off.
Here's the site of her organization if anyone's interested in getting further involved.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif
-
apple pie
-
Yeah, there are real bad guys in the world. But...Kentucky? Great boonies, that place's got enough guns in good ol' American hands to stave off a Commie invasion.
And THAT is reason enough to have a Janet Reno style ATF informant lurking behind every hickory stump. I don't think the app is about reporting terrorists, I think it is about getting Americans to report other Americans.
And Harbringe also has it right. When government types start recruiting their own forces it spells the beginning of the end for all of us, even the uber liberals who voted them into office. Next, school kids will be taught they are smarter than their parents....OH! That's already happening.
Velcome to zhe Several States of Amerika.
Yeah, I agree. I hope it's as simple as drumming up some money (as in homeland security money), but it seems too Orwellian overall as it has no actual practical usage (no *good* practical usage, of course).
-
disaster
-
From someone with 14years experience in emergency response management.
From what I've read of him, Gunderson has been in the business since the seventies and that's a lot longer than 14 years. He's a nuclear whistle-blower...of course there's going to be negative information about him out there. Obviously, CNN, The New York Times, and Forbes think enough of his credentials to do interviews, etc with him. Of course, since the pro-nuclear people will only see it their way, the bias that they give from their sources about a whistle-blower should be obvious as well.
But I'm not here to convince you. obviously, since you think it's acceptable for people to get cancer, for example, right? It's an "acceptable risk". You said so yourself. I personally don't agree. And when you bring in cars, living in a city, etc. etc, you're just muddying the waters because they're not the same thing. You can have a choice to not live in the city, or drive a car, but the people in Italy didn't have a choice when Chernobyl went the way it did, and the spread of thyroid problems/cancer is HUGE in Italy as a direct result of that. You probably won't find statistics on it, even/especially here in Italy, but all you have to do is talk to the doctors.
Try telling to a whole slice of the Italian population that it's all right, acceptable, that their bodies don't work right any more. When you say that it's only dangerous to people in the immediate area, you must be...I don't know how to say it nicely...but the irradiated crops in China and the US...that must be, what then? That's not dangerous to anybody, right? The radioactive waters in the oceans?
That must be why the European Union just raised the acceptable levels of radiation to almost three times the previous amount in these last days. Because no one's in danger unless they live in the immediate area of Fukushima, right?
They've been downplaying this from day one. Lying and backpedaling at every step. They're still doing it, as they don't talk about any of the other radioactivity (plutonium, for example) that's gotten out.
You can keep swallowing it...just like the italians did after Chernobyl when they got their thyroid problems...but I won't.
http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wallbash.gif
-
No it was my fault. Sorry to be a bit confusing Wizard. And I don't want to get off topic either. I was being a little tongue in cheek and was referring to the U.S. legalizing wire tapping for "certain" security reasons, after they had been allegedly doing it for years.
Ah, I get it. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif
-
Wizard, the unfortunate problem in my opinion is that there are enough real bad guys. And when there are not, there are people around to spread fear and distrust. So even, if the purveyors of the merchandise in question are innocent of anything more than trying to make a buck; their advertising tactics are designed to foment said fear and distrust and to further the cause of those who might have more ulterior motives.
Ulterior motives, without a doubt.
Yeah, there are real bad guys in the world. But...Kentucky? And I mean no offense to any Kentuckians, but...Kentucky?http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif What in the Pit could possibly be going on in Kentucky? Terrorism-wise, I mean. Great boonies, that place's got enough guns in good ol' American hands to stave off a Commie invasion. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/yes.gif
-
This is a video of Arnie Gunderson, a world-renowned nuclear engineer and one-time nuclear industry executive, talking about what the "powers-that-be" aren't telling you about Fukushima.
-
The only way china would invade another country is if the Chinese Communist party, elected an insane fool like Hitler. Which they wont. The chinese would never allow that.
Oh, right. Well, tell that to the Tibetans. And good luck.
The hopelessness of skyrim journalist's coverage
in Skyrim LE
Posted
Ha! The Toddler...that's a good one! http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif