AVDutch

AVDutch thinks Maharg has been king of the hill for quite long enough and charges up the hilly with a teddybear. Maharg in his fit of laughter fails to notice the massive tidal wave following AVDutch (yes, I am that awesome, I can control water and whatnot :D) and is promptly washed down the hill. AVDutch is once more king of the hill. Well... not so much a hill as a big mound of mud, but it counts.

I don't know how realistic this would be. If you want an awesome arrow of epic awesomeness that goes through a bunch of different people that's one thing, but keep in mind that arrows in real life also don't go straight through their target and keep going. Kinetic energy of an object is equal to its mass*velocity^2. However, a lot of the kinetic energy of arrows comes from their relatively high mass, whereas they travel comparatively slowly. If you compare this to a bullet for instance, say high caliber round that travels at well... really high speeds (mach 3 or so I believe), then that bullet obviously has a much MUCH higher kinetic energy than the arrow. (The smaller caliber rounds do not reliably go straight through their target, they usually disintegrate or at least contort somewhat inside the target). Not only that, but the much larger surface area of the arrow results in greater friction as well, and there are a bunch of other reasons as well why arrows not going straight through their target is not 'strange'.

Having a moving, controllable pirate ship would be the epitome of awesomeness, but I don't think it's easily feasible. It's probably a lot easier to anchor a ship somewhere that you can use as a home instead. That being said, having that ship be the Black Pearl would be pretty awesome :D!

Hey there, I was thinking, it would be really cool if someone (I can't do it myself alas because my experience with modding is practically zero) make a 'pirate package' mod. By this I mean a mod that would include the following: A pirate armor/clothing outfit, a couple of cool looking pirate weapons and a ship anchored somewhere that you can use as your pirate home. Preferably there would be a merry band of fellow pirates (How awesome would an eyepatch wearing, cutlass wielding Khajiit be?) on your ship that say piratey stuff. Dunno, just seems really cool to me, I don't know how feasible this would be.

Spamspamspamspam Whatsup guys :biggrin:

Hey guys; Long story short, I'm not particularly computer savvy (not that I don't know anything at all mind you, but if you go into a long and technical story you will lose me). And well, I need some advice in buying a good laptop. I have about 1000 euros to spend on it, and yes, it has to be a laptop because I travel a lot. I don't have any super-duper-mega high expectations, just that it can run most current games and an ok-ish level (don't need max performance). That's pretty much it. Can anybody recommend me a specific laptop or a site where I can order a custom build or anything like that? Thanks in advance!

Awesome, thanks! Tried it out and it works, I didn't know it had been updated :D!

AVDutch finally climbs out of the very VERY deep hole that was dug for him and, in lieu of more elegant methods, simply pummels Maharg67 with a shovel. Maharg67 flees down the hill, chased by AVDutch, who returns to his domain once more. My hill now.

Hello everyone; I have a question, is it possible to run the Steam version of Skyrim without starting up Steam? I ask this because I sometimes have to go on trips where I don't have internet, and I therefore can't access Steam. However, for some weird reason my steam won't start in offline mode unless I'm connected to the internet (in which case it's pretty useless anyway). The reason for this being that it tries to update (even if I tell it not to) and then it fails. So my question is: is it possible to start the Steam version of Skyrim without starting Steam, or should I try to fix my problem where Steam won't start in offline mode? Thanks in advance!

Sorry it took so long to post something new guys. I kinda threw out everything I had, including some portions of the back story, and here is chapter 1 of the new stuff. It was dark, and there were only a few personnel on duty as admiral Borbandi entered the bridge through the elevator doors situated at the very rear of the somewhat triangular superstructure. Immediately, one of the eager young officers on duty snapped to attention and announced: ‘Admiral on the bridge!’ Without much fuss admiral Borbandi instructed the men to be as they were, and calmly walked up to the captain. ‘When do you expect to arrive?’ He asked of the relatively young Captain that stood before him, in his calm collected manner. Weary of the long weeks of travel that lay behind him, as well as the many long nights planning their mission, Captain Carter responded: ‘we should be there within the hour sir.’ ‘Very good’ was the immediate response, ‘insure that we enter orbit at full alert, after all, we wouldn’t want any surprises.’ Admiral Borbandi’s tone was tense, and Captain Carter knew why. To him, the immaculately kept white uniform and focused, intense stare could not hide the turmoil going on in the man that stood before him. After all, so much rested upon the successful completion of their mission. Not only would the life of the man that Admiral Borbandi regarded as his surrogate son depend on it, but if they were forced to carry out their mission through military means, instead of diplomacy, they might well escalate the cold war that had been holding the settled systems in its icy grip for the past century into a full-scale war. A war that could very well push humanity over the edge to oblivion. As he turned to his screen, and proceeded to the final checks of the vessel before entering orbit, Carter remarked, ‘Looks like we have a welcoming committee, there are at least half a dozen warships in high orbit, waiting to intercept us on our approach’ ‘Not to worry, I would have expected nothing less from them than a show of force, especially with such important negotiations coming up. Look, captain, they are taking up an escort position around the Santa Maria’ said captain Borbandi, as the flotilla of Novan warships moved into position around the Santa Maria. ‘I understand sir, but what if the Novans decide to open fire on us? There is very little we could do to defend ourselves without revealing that we have caught up with them in the arms-race, and I really think it is a very bad idea to fire our EMP-burst’ fussed Carter, as he observed the Novan warships moving into a tighter formation. ‘It is a risk we have to take’ was the response by Borbandi, as he saw the remote colony of Arad loom up ahead. As they entered orbit a young lieutenant announced ‘we are being hailed!’ and the face of General Christopher Farid appeared on the view-screen. ‘A very good evening to you, admiral’ he said, after which he turned to captain Carter and in a much more brusque manner instructed: ‘You will enter geo-synchronous orbit above the great mountain range near the equator, and remain in that position until instructed otherwise, or we will take you out.’ After a quick nod from the admiral, Carter issued the instructions to the crew on the bridge, and returned his attention to the view-screen as Borbandi said ‘We will be expecting your shuttle in bay one general. Please only send one ship, I can guarantee your safety aboard the Santa Maria.’ ‘Even so’, Carter responded ‘I will not enter a Senes vessel without a squad of my men.’ ‘You will bring 4 of your men, and no more. I will not allow a significant Senes military force on my vessel!’ was the immediate response by Borbandi, as he met the cold gaze of Farid. ‘Very well, I will bring 4 men’ was the response at last, after several seconds of silence. As the view-screen went blank, Borbandi met Carters’ gaze. ‘I do not know how wise it was letting him bring his men aboard this ship’ Carter said, to which Borbandi replied ‘It could have been no other way. He would have refused to come and these negotiations would have been over before they began.’ ‘Even so, but I guarantee you he will try something while aboard’ Carter said. This however, had already occurred to Borbandi. For the past week during their journey, the Santa Maria’s crew had been busy fortifying the ship, enhancing its internal security features. There had been two separate crews working in tandem, one enhancing the already existing security systems, while the other came up with new ways of keeping the ship under Senes control. Among other things they had installed checkpoints every 10 meters or so, and if someone not injected with a tracer specifically designed for the job passed a checkpoint, the computer would immediately receive a report. Furthermore they had installed automated turrets at important locations, that would open fire on anyone not injected with the tracer. Security detail was also doubled, and all the crew was instructed to carry their side-arm while in orbit of Arad. As the airlock door slid open with a quiet hiss, admiral Borbandi glanced at the squad of his men standing by his side, ready to receive the Novan delegation with violence, should that become necessary. However, this proved not the case, as General Farid and his aide entered the vessel, escorted by the four soldiers they had brought with them. Without a word, Farid took Borbandi’s extended hand, and followed him to the conference room. As Farid and his aide stepped in, Borbandi motioned to the Senes and Novan soldiers that they were to remain outside, and stepped into the room with Carter. Scarcely had they set down at opposite ends of the table, when Farid spoke up: ‘We know what you want, but it will cost you.’ ‘This is a negotiation after all’ Borbandi said, taking the hint that they were to come straight to business, ‘I am sure we can work something out.’ ‘Yes, I do hope so as well’ Farid said with nothing short of a leer. ‘Here is our proposition: we give you your commander back, and in return for Maximillian Peck we get the Santa Maria.’

AVDutch executes a precision bomb-strike on the hill, sending Maharg67 flying in a comical cartoon-ish fashion. My hill now.

AVDutch sneaks up the hill, infiltrates Werne's shop through the back door and with quiet determination knocks Werne out with one of his propane tanks. AVDutch then calls his alien buddies who take Werne away for probing. My hill now

I see this is still an issue, so I'll repeat and try to clarify myself one more time. The difference, between what you're calling a parasite, and what I'm calling a parasite, is that you are using the second definition of the two (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parasite?q=parasite for the link) but I have repeatedly explained that I am labeling the parasite as a biological organism. I.e. the first definition. I have repeatedly stressed that I am calling the foetus a biological parasite. I.e. the first definition. The second definition is completely separate from that, and it means something else entirely. Yes, there are words with multiple definitions (as in the case of a parasite) but that doesn't mean that you can simply say 'you used parasite, therefore you are clearly referring to the second definition - lets call those social parasites - and not biological parasites, even though I have repeatedly stressed that this is simply NOT the case. I am not arbitrarily picking and choosing meanings and applying convenient ones. I am simply pointing out that I am using the first definition of the word. You are debunking my entire argument by saying 'but what about the second definition', which is irrelevant in this case. It is a completely separate meaning of the word, and I am not using the word in that meaning. You can also not simply say 'but the word also refers to social parasites therefore you are wrong' because that argument works both ways, and if your logic would hold up, it would mean that not only is any biological parasite also a social parasite, but also any social parasite is also a biological parasite. This is clearly not the case, therefore your logic in bringing social parasites into my argument is flawed. Furthermore, if you say that a woman's body is no longer her own body, then you are flying squarely in the face of current medical practices. An entirely different issue altogether, but if you declare that someone is no longer the primary (indeed, ONLY) decision maker regarding their own body, you run into a multitude of problems. Furthermore, your analogy with caring for your grandmother is also flawed, because no-one actually forced you to care for her. You were not legally obligated to care for her. Why, then, should a woman be legally obligated to carry a foetus until child birth, when that foetus is simply part of her body, and not a separate (no-one used the word independent but you) being? It acts like a parasite, but if you don't like that word, label it an organ. (Although the parasite argument is much easier in my opinion). Also, you are saying 'well... if she doesn't have an abortion in time, that's her own damn fault'. Now there are several problems with this: Firstly, you are forcing medical (key word here is MEDICAL) decisions onto someone. Something that should simply not happen under the current system of informed consent. Secondly, you are forcing someone into a position - quite possibly for the rest of her life - that she might not want to be in. Why should anyone but the woman carrying the child be allowed to choose for her? The interests of the woman always, ALWAYS, trump the interests of the unborn child.

I just think that if they did this in a game, they should add wookies as a playable race so I could name my character chewbacca and be crushed by a moon and enjoy the hilarity of the situation. But on a less... weird note, I don't really like the idea of this happening, but I am open to change, and I would LOVE another game revolving around morrowind, or you know, vvardenfell specifically. Perhaps a game in which the province is being rebuilt after the disaster? I can see some nice plot lines in a situation like that. Maybe the Thalmor are trying to use the catastrophe to gain a foothold in morrowind?

As I was doing, but it's still completely offensive. I don't think I made it very clear, so here goes: I don't think people living off of welfare are parasites or bad people, not as a whole. They are just people that are having very rough moments in their life and need some support to survive. They aren't parasites and they aren't bad people. But if we're going to start discussing the strict definition of the word, then it can be applied to them as well. Yep, I was talking about it in a clinical sense. I certainly didn't mean to offend someone, and I never said (or intended to imply) that people living off welfare are parasites or bad people (again, in the clinical sense). I was just remarking upon a biological fact, that a foetus (or the infant in any stage of gestation really) can simply be considered a biological parasite to the body of the female. I certainly didn't mean the word to apply to people on welfare, as I stated multiple times I was talking only in a biological sense of the word, where a parasite is simply an organism that sustains life by deriving nutrients from, and thereby being detrimental to, another organism. I perceived no negative connotation attached to this word, certainly not if one, as I am, was approaching the topic from a medical perspective. It is simply a statement. If anyone perceived my remarks of the foetus being a parasite as offensive to people on welfare, or any other layers of society, for any reason, I do apologize as it was certainly not what I mean. In fact, my entire argument in favor of abortion at any time rests (not solely, but in large part) on my case of a foetus being a parasite of the female body, as well as a part of the female body, and not a separate entity, unlike people who need societies help to survive. Therefore, in my opinion, the 'sanctity of life' argument cannot be applied to foetuses (or really infants in any stage of gestation), and the mother should have the right to manage her own body and make decisions about her own body as she sees fit. I should note that any anti-abortion argument runs into trouble when you bring DIC to the table. The DIC stands for doctrine of informed consent, (I'm sure you've all heard that in one way or another on medical drama shows), and what it means is that the patient is absolutely, 100% in charge of themselves. Basically, the patients makes all the decisions regarding treatment. For instance: If there are two treatment options, A and B, and the doctor recommends treatment A, he is still obligated to inform the patient about the existence of treatment B. At this point, if the patient opts for treatment B, the doctor must administer treatment B to the patient, and he is not allowed to administer treatment A (in any way, for instance sneakily), even if the doctor would have been objectively right to go with treatment A. Basically: the patient is always in charge. Now if you say that a woman is not allowed to abort a foetus, then it flies against the face of completely being in charge of your own body, and creates a rather uncomfortable grey zone. At least, following my argument of the foetus being a part of the woman's body, and not a separate entity.

Exactly my concerns, BlackBaron2. The fact that inconvenient old people in particular might be browbeaten into requesting euthanasia by greedy relatives. I know that my sister is likely to try that in the case of my parents, hence the fact that I will make MY views crystal clear to the medics. And no, AVDutch, de facto euthanasia WITHOUT consent is NOT rare at all. Did you not read the bit where I said that UK GP's have been asked to draw up a list from amongst their list of patients of people who should be DNR? Or that people in hospital are put on DNR and feeding and hydration withdrawn without discussion? Whilst abuses like this are going on it would be dangerous to make a law legalising assisted suicide. There would have to be draconian provisions that unless explicit consent and discussion should be proved, the assister would be staring down the barrel of a murder charge. I will certainly call the police if it happens to my old Mum. Really? De Facto Euthanasia without consent not rare? (Not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm expressing genuine surprise). Within the medical system that I'm currently studying in, euthanasia without consent is extremely rare. Illicit euthanasia does happen, but more often than not, it is performed legally (it is legal in Belgium). However, illicit euthanasia is more prevalent in countries where it is illegal (I believe that is the case in the UK). Keep in mind that there is a difference between DNR and euthanasia. Yes, withdrawing life-support is passive euthanasia, but I'm curious, do you have statistics for how often this happens without consent? Because from what I know of other medical systems, systems where it is illegal, euthanasia without consent is very rare (Note that in case of brain-death, withdrawing life-support is not passive euthanasia, but might misconstrued as such). I know this because my uncle is a doctor in a country where active euthanasia is illegal. However, illicit active euthanasia with consent by patients happens. Not regularly, but it happens. However, he said that he has never heard of been involved in a case in which any form of euthanasia was performed without consent.

I have said the same thing over and over, I will say it again. What I am saying is that the foetus is a biological parasite. your grandmother is not. It is not merely that the only difference is that one is physically seperated, while the other is not. It does not matter whether or not she is dependent upon care, she is a seperate person, and not a biological parasite. It can be argued that she is a burden, and perhaps even a parasite to society in the sens that she provides nothing in return to the services rendered to her (although this is probably not true), but it simply cannot be argued that your grandmother is a biological parasite. Therein lies the difference. Yes, I do advocate that women should have the right to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy, because, up until the moment of birth it still their own body that they are deciding over. They are not 'taking a separate human life' because the foetus that they are killing is not a separate being. It is not yet a person, and therefore should not be accorded rights associated with a person. Furthermore, its perceived 'right to life' should not supersede the wishes of its host, who runs very real medical risks during childbirth, and even during pregnancy. Risks she would not run otherwise, not risks from daily life! Therefore, the desires of the mother are what matters, and if she desires to have the pregnancy aborted, she is exerting her right to manage her own body as she sees fit. For the record, I would like to state that I think abortion after labor has begun but before the child is born is permissible under certain very specific circumstances. Namely that not doing so would endanger the life of the mother. Otherwise, the foetus should be removed as quickly as possible (which is in the best interest of the mother) at which point it has been born, and abortion is no longer permissible. One more thing: no-one is forcing you to care for your grandmother. Of course, it is the 'right thing to do', but there is no law that makes it necessary to do so. Why should it be necessary to give birth to a child once you're pregnant? And before you say it: the reason that aborting at any stage should be ethically (and legally) permissible, while caring for your grandmother - i.e. not "aborting" her, if we boil down the analogy to its roots - is the 'right thing to do' stems from the fact that your grandmother is a seperate person whereas a foetus is not (as I have explained above). Killing your grandmother and aborting a foetus are also different, because you can simply walk away from caring for your grandmother, and therefore it is not necessary to kill her to lift your burden. However, you cannot walk away form carrying a foetus, unless you chose to have an abortion.

I've explained it time and again to you. I'll explain it again. A foetus is a parasite, biologically, because well... it fits the definition. I've explained why and how repeatedly, go back and read it if you want. You're right that there are parasites that do not live in but on an organism, exoparasites (as opposed to endoparasites) and a foetus is an endoparasite. But once born it doesn't become an exoparasite. It's direct link to its host is severed, and while it receives (usually at least) breast feeding, it is now no longer - biologically, NOT talking psychologically here, as I can imagine situations where a baby would be psychologically harmful to its mother, because that is irrelevant to biological parasitism, not my opinion, but also fact - harmful to its host. I'm not saying its a crime for the child to be inside its mother, or that gestation is awful, all I'm pointing out is that the foetus inside its mother acts as a parasite, and not as a separate human being, and it is still part of the host, therefore the host should be allowed to do with it as she sees fit. You can keep saying that I'm wrong about the entire parasite thing, but that doesn't change that what I'm saying is fact. Also, none of the entities you have described even remotely fit the description of a biological parasite. Once again, not opinion, fact.

Right, and the sick, the poor, the disabled etc etc are all depriving sustenance from their host society. So why is one parasite given rights and protections and the other isn't? They're both parasites, they both deprive sustenance from their host and one even moreso than the other(hint, it's not the fetus). Yet, you're ignoring the basic definition of parasite. Again, this is an arbitrary distinction lacking a logically sound reasoning. Whether the parasite is living inside, on or feeding remotely does not change the fact the parasite is still feeding off the host. But hey, let's use another example. When my grandmother was dying of cancer, she was a massive burden on me. I had to take off of work, which deprived me of money, which deprived me of groceries, I had to take her to the hospital, which deprived me of gas. I had pay for doctors and nurses, which was money that would have been spent on gas, groceries and bills. Would I have been justified in killing her without her consent? She was not an independent person. She was a DEPENDENT, reliant on me and my family for survival. There was no significant difference between her situation and that of an unborn child. I am not ignoring the basic definition of a parasite. You are. I never used the word 'independent'. I used the word 'separate'. A word that is different in meaning. Saying 'the moment of birth is when a foetus stops being a biological parasite' is not something arbitrary. It is not even an opinion. It is a fact. Also, just because a baby breast feeds, this does not mean it still is a parasite after it is born. Obviously you would not have been justified in killing your grandmother without her consent. But this is - again - because she was a seperate person. A foetus is, as I have shown you time and again, not a seperate entity, but a parasite who is entirely dependent on its host. And through this dependance it drains nutrients from its host, which negatively impact the host itself. Ergo: biological parasitism. Not a 'burden to society' parasite, but a biological one. Unlike your grandmother, who might have been a burden, but it did not make her a biological parasite.

And in that last word in your sentence lies the fallacy of your logic. I am calling foetuses biological parasites of your mother. Your examples are not biological parasites. Unborn children are not parasites because they say they are. I am not simply adding a caveat. I am simply using parasite in the biological sense, i.e. referring to an organism that derives nutrients from it's host, and which is a burden to the host. This is not my imagined definition of a parasite. This is fact. Not even that advanced of a fact. It's really just basic high-school biology. And it is not 'magic' that takes place at the moment of birth. It is simply the moment in time at which the foetus stops being a parasite (again, in the biological sense of the word) to its host (the mother). It is really the moment that one becomes an separate person. Also: I hate to say it, but a foetus in the womb is most certainly not breathing. Just pointing it out. Also, I said: Notice how I used the word biologically.

I'm not talking about euthanasia. K? 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. The other definitions you have neglected. The poor, the sick and prisoners are also parasites by definition. So again, why not make it legal to kill them when it's most convenient? Well... first off... if you're not talking about euthanasia, but mass murder, then why bring it up? I fail to see how 'Hitler killed a bunch of people' is relevant to the debate. Second of all, and I think I was pretty clear, but let me just spell it out: I was talking about a parasite in the strictest, biological sense of the word. The difference between an embryo or foetus (or a zygote for that matter, but let's not call ending a pregnancy in that state 'abortion'. If you have to ask why: it's because a zygote is just a clump of cells, and other anti-conception methods - that are NOT abortion - can be used to end a pregnancy in that phase) and the examples you're giving is that an embryo or foetus is not yet a person. Therefore, your analogy of 'why not just legalize killing people in comas etc' is flawed because of that simple fact: they are people. They would therefore fall under the 'requested euthanasia' part of my argument, where, as you can see, I advocate no such thing as 'killing them for the good of everyone else'. I advocate: if you wish to die you should be able to do it quickly and painlessly through euthanasia. This is done upon YOUR request.

And you are missing my point. First of all: I'm not saying: kill everyone who relies on someone for survival, I'm saying: IF someone would like to commit suicide for whatever reason, he should be able to request euthanasia, and a doctor should be allowed to administer it (but then again, unless the euthanasia is being requested to prevent suffering from a terminal illness, a doctor should be able to refuse it). I'm not saying: euthanasia is okay, so it's okay for a doctor to go on a killing spree... Secondly, here is what makes an unborn child a parasite, whereas none of the things you mentioned even remotely fit he definition. A parasite is: "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense." (That is the actual definition by the way). Sure there are valid reasons for enduring this relationship (from the mother's perspective), but that doesn't change the fact that an unborn child is biologically a parasite.

I suddenly spawn behind you (have to enter the fight somehow after all) and shovel a lot of highly radioactive snow into your clothes.

The three games that I have the fondest memories of are definitely Morrowind, Re-Volt and Transport Tycoon Deluxe. (Not the open-source freeware heavily modified version). I don't know why, but these three games just captivated me. Ok, I liked Re-Volt because my friends and I spent (and still occasionally spend) large amounts of time beating each other in the battle tag mode and then laughing at eachother. Morrowind because of the atmosphere. The game world is simply so amazing. Transport Tycoon Deluxe because... I don't know. But I found it awesome! (Still do in fact).

There actually is an entire universe to it, as well as a larger story concerning grand admiral Borbandi, but it's not entirely finished yet. Also it's not quite as refined as I would like yet. I will edit and post the first part of it tomorrow.