Passb

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0H2rSJayL_c Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital. Saying the state is REQUIRED to do all of these things is not only juvenile but simply laughable. Aside from the moral reasons in opposition to the state, the economic arguments are quite basic. The state is incapable of calculating the opportunity costs of production and has no way of calculating, economically, where the most efficient use of resources should be directed. Both of these problems result in an extremely high level of inefficiency in providing even the most basic of services. Look up the Icelandic Commonwealth (Medieval Iceland). This "significantly sized" group as you put had private defense agencies instead of a monopoly police force as well as what is now referred to as private law or private dispute resolution. A very good read from David Friedman: http://www.daviddfri...nd/Iceland.html If you want to resort to insults, you can be added to my ignore list with a few quick clicks. Also, running off a line of feces is not an argument. None of what you discuss there matters one whit to the state, or the people. The people want roads to drive on. Individually, they are going to be unable to build the infrastructure required for such a project. convincing enough folks that it is a 'good idea' is one thing, getting the to do, let alone PAY FOR IT, is an entirely separate issue. Also, your argument falls flat in the face of american history. The US government started the interstate system to ENCOURAGE commerce, and make it easier to transport goods around the country. They KNEW it would be a boon to the economy, both in the jobs created by the projects themselves, and the commerce they enabled. No problem, I can give you five off the top of my head: Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia. I'll even describe one for you: Croatia is built like that, 4.5 million people who live on a private property of foreign companies. Politicians do nothing but bark at each other and they have no real power since everything inside the border is owned by someone else, even the border. All of our road repairs and road/bridge constructions are funded and controlled by German private companies and are built without any consent from the government (our highways don't even have a building license but they are still built and used), same goes for the fire department. Hospitals are funded and controlled by Pliva, who is in turn controlled by US and German pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Bayer. Police force is controlled my the Ministry of Internal Affairs which does nothing if NATO doesn't request it, it's funded by US and is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/rolleyes.gif Hotels - foreign, clinics - foreign, hospitals - foreign, police - foreign, sea - foreign, land - foreign, electrical company - foreign, phone companies - foreign, water company - foreign, roads - foreign, oil company - foreign, military - foreign, government - exists but politicians do nothing whatsoever but sit on their arse and get payed for doing nothing. Nothing in Croatia is owned by it's government and they don't help anyone but themselves. Also, half the government is in prison for theft, bribery, smuggling, murder, extortion, racketeering, war profiteering, threatening, etc. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif The same situation is in the other four countries I mentioned, they just have a different name. So you see, you don't need a government for the state to function. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif No, you need foreign governments, and private companies operating at the behest of same.... How is that in any way considered "Anarchy"? That's fine, I'd rather not listen to an irrational statist who has yet to present any evidence of their position in a thoughtful and logical fashion. Line of feces? My undergraduate field of study is in economics, a field in which you clearly do not understand. If rational arguments presented with references offend you, that's fine, I've noticed in my line of work statists are very wary of economics in relation to the state. You've demonstrated you are unwilling to even investigate the material I've presented. Would you to provide any references for your incorrect statements? You've got a tough academic career ahead of you it sounds like kid. Another good article to investigate is a great book or entry on Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Although, I highly doubt you will investigate this wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia....ate,_and_Utopia Kid? *snicker* I haven't been a kid for quite some time. I also have found that those that think they know more, because they are "educated"...... are those that are least likely to actually understand the human aspect of the problem. I have also found, in my own education, that what they teach, and what actually happens in the real world, are two entirely different things. (Yes, I have funny little letters after my name too. Doesn't mean diddly squat.) One question though, when has "not understanding the implications/impact of an action" EVER stopped a government from doing something? When has actually understanding the cost/benefits of an action EVER caused a group of individualists to DO something??? Ponder that one for a while. For me, I don't really feel like "debating" with the "I be edumacated, therefore, I am smarter than you" types. I'm out. Have fun guys. Would have fooled me, you failed to offer any evidence for any of the positions you claimed. Nice attempt at arguing.

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0H2rSJayL_c Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital. Saying the state is REQUIRED to do all of these things is not only juvenile but simply laughable. Aside from the moral reasons in opposition to the state, the economic arguments are quite basic. The state is incapable of calculating the opportunity costs of production and has no way of calculating, economically, where the most efficient use of resources should be directed. Both of these problems result in an extremely high level of inefficiency in providing even the most basic of services. Look up the Icelandic Commonwealth (Medieval Iceland). This "significantly sized" group as you put had private defense agencies instead of a monopoly police force as well as what is now referred to as private law or private dispute resolution. A very good read from David Friedman: http://www.daviddfri...nd/Iceland.html If you want to resort to insults, you can be added to my ignore list with a few quick clicks. Also, running off a line of feces is not an argument. None of what you discuss there matters one whit to the state, or the people. The people want roads to drive on. Individually, they are going to be unable to build the infrastructure required for such a project. convincing enough folks that it is a 'good idea' is one thing, getting the to do, let alone PAY FOR IT, is an entirely separate issue. Also, your argument falls flat in the face of american history. The US government started the interstate system to ENCOURAGE commerce, and make it easier to transport goods around the country. They KNEW it would be a boon to the economy, both in the jobs created by the projects themselves, and the commerce they enabled. No problem, I can give you five off the top of my head: Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia. I'll even describe one for you: Croatia is built like that, 4.5 million people who live on a private property of foreign companies. Politicians do nothing but bark at each other and they have no real power since everything inside the border is owned by someone else, even the border. All of our road repairs and road/bridge constructions are funded and controlled by German private companies and are built without any consent from the government (our highways don't even have a building license but they are still built and used), same goes for the fire department. Hospitals are funded and controlled by Pliva, who is in turn controlled by US and German pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Bayer. Police force is controlled my the Ministry of Internal Affairs which does nothing if NATO doesn't request it, it's funded by US and is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/rolleyes.gif Hotels - foreign, clinics - foreign, hospitals - foreign, police - foreign, sea - foreign, land - foreign, electrical company - foreign, phone companies - foreign, water company - foreign, roads - foreign, oil company - foreign, military - foreign, government - exists but politicians do nothing whatsoever but sit on their arse and get payed for doing nothing. Nothing in Croatia is owned by it's government and they don't help anyone but themselves. Also, half the government is in prison for theft, bribery, smuggling, murder, extortion, racketeering, war profiteering, threatening, etc. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif The same situation is in the other four countries I mentioned, they just have a different name. So you see, you don't need a government for the state to function. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif No, you need foreign governments, and private companies operating at the behest of same.... How is that in any way considered "Anarchy"? That's fine, I'd rather not listen to an irrational statist who has yet to present any evidence of their position in a thoughtful and logical fashion. Line of feces? My undergraduate field of study is in economics, a field in which you clearly do not understand. If rational arguments presented with references offend you, that's fine, I've noticed in my line of work statists are very wary of economics in relation to the state. You've demonstrated you are unwilling to even investigate the material I've presented. Would you care to provide any references for your incorrect statements? This is basic argumentative strategy for trying to coherently establish any position in an argument, and I have yet to see any kind of even basic references to other sources. Another good article to investigate is a great book or entry on Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Although, I highly doubt you will investigate this wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0H2rSJayL_c Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital. Saying the state is REQUIRED to do all of these things is not only juvenile but simply laughable. Aside from the moral reasons in opposition to the state, the economic arguments are quite basic. The state is incapable of calculating the opportunity costs of production and has no way of calculating, economically, where the most efficient use of resources should be directed. Both of these problems result in an extremely high level of inefficiency in providing even the most basic of services. Look up the Icelandic Commonwealth (Medieval Iceland). This "significantly sized" group as you put had private defense agencies instead of a monopoly police force as well as what is now referred to as private law or private dispute resolution. A very good read from David Friedman: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H2rSJayL_c

Speaking of crappy collision/clipping detection, that reminds of the O&S boss fight. I thoroughly enjoyed how Ornstein's spear could go straight through those pillars when he did that long range thrust lunge.

Pretty much this. Bethesda no longer cares about lore in any of their games (I'm looking at you Skyrim), so I can completely see them doing something like you mentioned about the game's setting taking place in London. I think it would be interesting to have a Fallout game take place in a country or region that wasn't directly attacked during the nuclear exchange. Somewhere like South America or another somewhat remote and isolated region to see how a post-apocalyptic has changed relatively "unaffected" societies.

They should learn to make a good TES game. It's stated to death, but I think Morrowind was the last good TES game. Oblivion wasn't a bad game by any stretch, but as a TES game and especially when comparing it to Morrowind, it definitely falls short. Shivering Isles and even Knights of the Nine definitely made Oblivion worth it, but I felt the MQ became bland and repetitive after a while. I won't even bother mentioning Skyrim.

Try to reinstall, if that doesn't work try running the game in administrator mode. If nothing still it could be an error with Games for Windows Live. I know certain USB controllers that are not "official" 360/PS3 gamepads can cause issues like this.

I hope it's just some of their titles and not whole chunks of the company. The last thing the gaming industry needs is an even larger EA with solid IP under their discretion.

Being that there was a massive demand to get the PC port, I think they'll optimize the PC version of DSII. What I hope they add is dedicated server, and more straightforward coop and pvp.

I understand where you're coming from though. I never enjoyed handheld gaming but I know a lot of people do. Sadly a lot of great games have been released for handhelds that I simply never got to play. I hope this isn't the case with this NVIDIA handheld.

If the hardware is capable, inexpensive, and they are able to mitigate most of the control issues, I'm not sure what the problem with that is. I'm not saying it is a problem, but for people who already currently own a gaming PC I'm not sure what the point of buying the thing would be. Depending on the price, why would you pay for a box that will only play PC games when, for around the same price, you could build your own PC that would be able to not only play games on but of course use as a personal computer. Again if Valve is able to make this thing relatively inexpensive and the price difference was substantial between owning the box and owning a PC, then of course it would be a wise choice to invest in their product.

So have they explained how games are going to work on this thing. In my mind all the Steam Box appears as is a gaming PC with a gamepad that lets you play your PC games like a console and enjoy them from your couch, even though plenty of people already do that with their current machines. The whole thing just feels like a gimmick.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/07/nvidias-project-shield-an-android-based-handheld-with-steam-big-picture-streaming/ Looks like NVIDIA is making a handheld. I have never been into handheld gaming but this looks promising. Especially that reportedly you'll be able to hook up with your Steam account and stream in HD to another monitor/television. Have to say they botched the controller though, instead of using the superior true directional pad that the Playstation controller has they opted for the sub-par 360 d-pad.

You should revive her. Once you get the lordvessel an important part of getting around is based on which bonfires you can teleport to. Not having firelink shrine available can lead to being a very severe pain in the ass. You'll want to keep the firekeepers alive as well as you can until you come ready for NG+. Wow I'm an idiot. I completely forgot she has to be there to use/kindle the bonfire in Firelink. As I said it feels bad to still feel like a DaS newcomer.