Robok

So k I'm probably not the only one who wants/needs this, as I go around literally cleaning up anywhere I go, and I have to fast-travel every few minutes because of how much junk encumbers me. So... yeah, weightless junk pls.

In response to post #24738304. #24738404, #24738464, #24738479, #24738524, #24738604, #24738659, #24738679, #24738694, #24738739, #24738779, #24738799, #24738804, #24738919, #24738944, #24738974, #24739104, #24739184, #24739199, #24739204, #24739289, #24739329, #24739359, #24739394, #24739409, #24739474, #24739514, #24739544, #24739564, #24739609, #24739619, #24739639, #24739689, #24739759, #24739784, #24739884, #24739949, #24739999, #24740019, #24740029, #24740039, #24740124, #24740139, #24740174, #24740184, #24740199, #24740234, #24740349, #24740469, #24740494, #24740509, #24740569, #24740579, #24740584, #24740694, #24740734, #24740789, #24740809, #24740814, #24740834, #24740844, #24740859, #24740899, #24740939, #24740959, #24741039, #24741074, #24741079, #24741154, #24741159, #24741164, #24741289, #24741369, #24741419, #24741429, #24741444, #24741449, #24741529, #24741644, #24741674, #24741699, #24741714, #24741744, #24741754, #24741764, #24741784, #24741804, #24741884, #24741959, #24742024, #24742104, #24742119, #24742154, #24742169, #24742194 are all replies on the same post. Well the original example is bad, but how far do you think Skyrim modding would have come if SKSE was originally released as a paid mod? Or SkyUI, or one of the hundreds of modder resources we have on the Nexus? Look, you want the option to make money, I think anyone that doesn't support modders in that regard is being selfish and greedy, but you have to consider the circumstance and what got us here, even you must realize that introducing a paywall at such a time will split the community and create a copyrights nightmare, that is _not_ how you go about supporting modders, I'm not even sure how I'd go about introducing another model, but I know for certain introducing a paywall at this time is the wrong choice. For now we have to trust in the Nexus and their ability to push the Donate button into visibility, I for one didn't even know the option existed until someone pointed it out in one of Dark0ne's posts.

Am I the only one who thinks the 25% author cut is too low? You're slaving away working yourself to release a $1 mod and Valve/Bethesda walk away with 0.75c and you only get 0.25c? That's some bullshit, it should be at least 50% for the author. Also honestly I really hate this change, donations and such would have been a much better alternative and wouldn't alienate so many people. Some of the paid mods are already being flooded with inconsequential (admittedly high quality) items that are akin to pre-order DLCs, I don't like the direction this is headed into at all.

As the title suggests, when trying to download a small file that was recently uploaded (and thus hasn't propagated across servers completely) you can come up across the "File not available on server yet" message. Even though the file is available from at least one of the other mirrors, but since it's a small file, the download button skips the mirror list and selects least crowded one. Suggest one of the following: Add a separate button to choose mirror for small files. Return user to mirror list in case of the error (which would make much more sense).

Don't know if I'm the only one who really hates full-screen scopes in FO3/FNV. I personally loathe how it restricts your FOV and awareness of your surroundings. Then I tried AlexScorpion's Sniper Gear, and I loved how he simply added a scope overlay and zoomed the screen, and then I thought how awesome it would be if all the scopes in the game were converted to look like that. Or at least have the option of turning them on and off via NVSE or something. So it boils down to this: Can anyone convert all scopes to transparent overlays and remove the full-screen bulldroppings please? :P

It's different when you say "Hitler killed millions to save billions!" from when you say "Hitler killed millions and accidentally saved billions!". It's all in the intent and purpose of the doer. I'm sure most of you have played Assassin's Creed by now, it's one of the better games that I've played with deep story that makes you stop and think, quite fitting of the same subject as well, since I don't want to spoil it to those who didn't play it, just go play it and listen to what each hit you kill says when they're dying and you'll know what I mean. Now what I'm saying is, all madmen think of themselves right, Hitler probably did it all for the good of his people (read:race), Stalin also thought the same, but it all comes down to this: Can you avoid bloodshed? Consider this situation:- Two families (or parties or factions) are at quarrel with each other, they haven't started killing each other yet but they're about to. They both listen to their leaders, and without the two parties would dissolve. Now you can either kill the two leaders, or one of them to ease up the situation. In other words you're killing 1 or 2 people to save the rest. Alternatively you could try to convince both leaders to stand down and also ease up the situation. In other cases where bloodshed cannot be avoided at all, you choose the lesser evil, as in kill the least amount of people to save the many. At least that's how I view it.

Wouldn't do you any good, its architecture differs completely from the normal computer processors. If you still think it'll be 8 times as fast as anything now, try installing Linux on your PS3 and emulating whatever PC game you want, see how it performs.

For me or for humanity as a whole? Personally, I would feel that my life has or had a meaning only if I left a good mark on the world, however small it may be. However humanity as a whole, probably should aim for perfection in every aspect it can perfect. Basically, achieving utopia.

Is it me or is the OP just trolling or something? Anyhow, way I see it, both consoles are just the frame in which you'll put your games into. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Now thing is, what really matters, is what (type of) games you're into, i.e. exclusives for both consoles. And maybe also how many people you know own either of those consoles. I have a PS3, it's a good console IMO, free online multiplayer, blu-ray player, MGS4 (was selling point for me :P) amongst other things. I couldn't really care less about the graphics, my computer alone can beat both the PS3 and Xbox 360 any day of the week, and it has, so if I was really concerned about that I'd just stick with PC gaming. My experience with Games for Windows Live has been nothing but annoying, it feels very intrusive, the updates are really shitty, and it's usually more of a hindrance than an aid. And the whole pay-per-month thing for WL Gold and all that, not too good of a deal for me.

Do you honestly believe that a criminal mind will cease to exist because we don't have enough technology? I mean, people have been fighting eachother with sticks and stones, swords, poles, guns, bombs, missiles, even barehanded, do you think that if we removed all things that classify as "weapons" from the world, the killing will stop? Hell no. You're getting yourself in a web of infinite looping questions that will ultimately get you back to where you started from. As it seems to me that you're opposed to technological advancement because of the possible criminal and inhumane applications, but have you ever asked yourself: does a criminal need technology to commit crime?

Rating a game is an incredibly relative thing. Since you need standards to rate games to, and where do these standards come from? Morals, and I believe we, as a race, haven't come up with constant morals that we all agree and adhere to. This is why rating a game containing nudity +18 is stupid in a society that accepts nudity and shows it on TV, and rating a violent game +13 is also stupid in a society that rejects violence. Why not just have flags? Like: Contains Nudity, Contains Violence, Contains Strong Language, etc. and let the parents/customers decide? I find myself looking up things like that when searching for movies and games more than the given ratings.

A logical person does not need law to tell him or her that she shouldn't steal from others or kill others, it just makes sense not to be an idiot and do that. But in reality, people do all sorts of stupid things, even with the high risk of being caught, this is sadly why I think we cannot abandon law even if the thought of anarchy seems like a better idea. There is no application of science which can actually prove or debunk karma. Simply put because you do not know that in the timeline in which you didn't do the good deed. Are you familiar with the Butterfly Effect theory? That the simplest change in time could have enormous effects on everything and everyone? Well this is one area where it applies. Thing is, you _can't_ prove it, you'd need a time machine to go back in time and test if it's true or not, whether you would have gotten your car overheat on you while going to work if you had given that hobo some charity or not. That is not to mention that you can't randomly link an action to another unless they are logically connected. For instance lets assume that on your way to school or work or whatever, you saw a rope that could trip people, you decided to remove it, then you got to school and had a test you didn't know about, scored badly, and then went back home, only this time your mind wasn't on the road and if that rope was there you could've tripped. Now if we link the first even of removing the rope to the test, it wouldn't make sense, but if we link removing the rope to not tripping, then it makes sense. This is largely related to how you interpret things, but some things you said were absurd, for instance: "Doing good deeds does not in fact purchase some intangible good fuel that is stored in a karma fuel tank and in fact has it has been scientifically proved that in society no good deed really does go unpunished." I'm thinking the background to that statement is the random occurrence of good and bad things in life, and not directly linking them together. Like doing something good as a 9 years old kid and then getting in a fight at the age of 14, and saying the two are linked.

Don't confuse confuse animal cruelty with animal testing, are they they same? Hell no, showering a rabbit with a new shampoo formula is the same as throwing it around walls? You know animal tests are not just injections and electricity shocks. The argument of Human vs. Animal life is... well wrong, I think most of us can agree that human lives are (lets assume all humans are good) worthier than animals. An even outside this assumption, not everyone in prison is guilty. Seems to me that anyone who agrees on doing tests on inmates also condones torture, which is however you look at it, wrong. From a scientific standpoint, testing on animals is much more efficient and easier to control than humans, rather than waiting for someone to get stuffed in prison for murder or whatever (this entire system could go so horribly wrong I don't even want to go into that).

Newton's Third Law of Motion: Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. I think this about sums up why there's always proportionally growing hate for anything that has a huge following. Not that I like Twilight or even think it remotely resembles anything "good", in my opinion it's the shallowest, most useless form of literature that has gotten out to the mainstream media. But that's just me.

To be honest the concept of "DLCs" as they call it these days has always been there, they were called Expansions, but somehow now since they're downloadable they're called "Downloadable Content" instead. Semantics aside, I think the amount of content added is the only thing that justifies a hefty price-tag, you might say that the developers were lazy and should have included it all in the final game, but when you buy the game you accept it as is, with no expectations of anything major to be added to the game. Game companies like Bethesdachoose to add content via DLCs when it is significant enough. While Bethesda's DLCs were somewhat lacking (I'm thinking the only 2 worthy DLCs released by them are Point Lookout and the Shivering Isles), they are still not nearly as ridiculous as DLC mappacks for games like CoD4 on consoles. Then you also get gaming companies like Valve, they give you a 75% finished game and add content to it as they go, CSS was exactly like that, TF2 got the same treatment, and then L4D (not much, but still got some content). Do people like it? I do, it keeps the game alive for you much longer, but thing is, it's the same as DLCs, except free. Not all companies are as easygoing as Valve when it comes to releasing free content, they all think "more expenses means we must get paid for this!" instead of "why don't we add more content to this game so we can get more people interested in buying it?". Anyhow, to cut it short: I'm not against DLCs if they provide sufficient content (in which case they'll be expansions), but I'm still hugely in support of companies like Valve giving more content to their consumers they go.