Trandoshan

Perhaps removing them from the latest pictures? Otherwise they are necessary for adult mods to describe what they do. It's not that they are art or porn, it's that people cry for screenies in order to know what the mod does. Especially cosmetic mods which make up most of the adult section anyways. I suppose required censoring would clear this mess of a debate up, but someone would debate against it.

I'm going to express the other side of the opinion. Namely, that society won't fall apart as most of the posts imply. Electricity is important, and there are plenty of other sources of it other than an electrical grid. Even if electricity were to magically disappear, there are still some forms of transportation that do not rely solely on electricity. Older cars for example require no electricity. Electricity has never stopped society from functioning before the 1850's. That means humanity has lived for millions of years without electricity. Slyg's got the best (and only at this point) non-chaotic reasoning behind the removal of electricity. Farming communities would begin to form after a short period of planes crashing. Most breaks will work, so i don't see many cars crashing into each other, just newer ones. A few buildings would burn too, however, I wouldn't fathom to see a mass scene of fiery massacre. guns still work, as they are not powered, so police and military are still viable. Ocean ships will still operate as long as the fuel reserves are still there. By the time the reserves do run out, humanity will begin to repair the power grid again. This article tells the story of what happened the last time a solar flare hit. A few telegraphs burned down, and the scale will be larger due to our electrically obsessed society. However, did we not recover from that last flare? It will be harder this time, but in my honest beliefs I think that society can pull itself together despite losing it's playstation and e-mail for a while. Thankfully for us, we still have not evolved to rely on machines entirely. I find that many people entertain the thought of anarchy because they want to see something different in their lives. I would remind everyone here that anarchy is the last thing you want in a crisis. No offense meant to anyone in this statement.

It's just a shame that those people would have to give their bodies away due to a missing payment, or a need for college cash. I couldn't have said it better. Taking a law and removing something pleasurable to society will only cause the formation of a black market. The same holds for prohibition, and Marijuana. I think you deserve... your first Kudos. I feel though, despite our parallel ideals on this subject, that sex should be relaxed in this nation (U.S.) and that welfare should not be given to those who would use their bodies for the darkest desire. There are already plenty of restrictions on the darkest desire, and I believe these laws should be loosened to keep government out. I've never been to a strip club, so I have no real authority on how it is, but this is supposedly our right to dangle the dongle in private quarters with however we want.... As long as it is consented on both sides, there should be no restriction on who does what with who. This includes pornographic videos, and prostitution. Since it is the choice of the prostitute to be a prostitute, I don't believe we should give them 'welfare'. Welfare being assistance from a government to "improve their employment chances". There are other aspects to welfare, but this one is the way to justify my statement. We don't want to make prostitution favorable through Welfare, but instead deter it by not offering assistance of any kind to the Bawdyhouses. This is in the respectable means of a government to control the spread of prostitution not by restring it, but by relaxing the laws enough to make prostitution less favorable. A good counter argument is that those who are being prostituted will receive harsh treatment from their employers/pimps, however, there are other opportunities to make money anywhere. If your situation is bad enough, you can apply for federal welfare. Prostitution is an unnecessary alternative really. In summary, we meet both arguments half way in a sort of bi-partisan manner. The deal being 'let prostitution set up shop anywhere the want, but offer no assistance to these places'. This is capitalism in it's truest sense, and since we are dealing with prostitution and strip clubs, non-regulatory consideration must be given. Prostitutes aren't lowlifes, but their line of work could be easily changed. I can't say anything more, as asking prostitutes to stop shaking their money-makers, and do something productive. There's my biased imput, good day.

I can see where a few references to the Genocides of WW2 can come as an excellent way to counter genetics. WW2 makes the argument of who's got better genetics so..... evil.

Your friend is wise it appears... ....... *Looks again at post* ...... Wait... Whose country?

I'm one of those people, sadly. So I can't retort. However, there is always this one chick in my class who does nothing but study, and always seems to get a higher grade than me. I hate being the second best, but I guess she deserves it. I guess you're right though. A lazy person who makes a 100% is obviously happy. Sadly, his lack of effort in doing tasks will ultimately be his downfall in the 'working world'. The thing is, this passage isn't as relevant to the argument as it seems. I guess this is due to the fact that you don't get a job nor money because you survived a trainwreck. You get a good talking piece though, hehe. Not a true story, sadly. Find another good movie. I need a good convincing apparently. Actually, Paris Hilton is a shrewd Businesswoman. At least her perfume, line of clothing, and actressing says so. Do you know how much stress people in the public eye are in? Tom Cruise went insane because of the ever watchful public eye. It's not as easy as you think. Not all genetically endowed people are rich and famous, sadly. Look at Paris Hilton. She does nothing and gets paid. Oh wait. forget about that. hehe. ------ You've got a small point. However, think about this. Without effort, luck is useless. If you don't follow up on that business meeting and spend some time making a well-constructed power point, then Joe is going to get your job. I'm retaining my opinion that they are yin and yang when it comes to life. You've got to meet luck halfway, or you're screwed.

This my friend is where those with Imagination get weeded out from those WITH imagination. Or you could crack open the CS, and make your own character development. That's the true beauty.

Trotzdem ist jedes Reich immer untergegangen, egal ob 'effizient' oder nicht...man koennte sagen, dass das Untergehen der Struktur des Reiches innewohnt. Jedwedes Bemuehen angesichts dessen, um ein Reich entstehen zu lassen, wuerde zwangslaeufig zum Untergang fuehren, aufgrund der dem Reich innewohnenden Natur und zwar der des Untergehens...nicht wahr? Das ist eine wahre Aussage. Weswegen ich deine Beabsichtigung bei diesem Thread in Frage stelle...? the longer lasting the greater, the greater and longer lasting the empire the more the historic relevance it had/has/will have. I think the time of such empires is over. The Empire as a form of government is over because it was replaced by a much more oppressing form of government. It's called Nationalism :rolleyes: . I'd love a Sausage, thanks.

Chance, and circumstance... Everything? Spoken like an outsider to the 'American' opportunity. I suppose I should give you a wonderful reference that is easy for an 'American' to understand perhaps a movie based on a true story (If you believe that 'true story happy ending' BS.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ Both you and Coous are only halfway to the center of the sun. The trailer makes it seem like it was all effort, but it was more than just effort... trust me.... Movie got some tears from me at the very least. Chance and circumstance are wasted without effort. You can't sit in a chair, do nothing, and inherit a fortune. On the other end, you can't toil away in the soil and hope to sow the seed of this 'great' American dream that doesn't really exist. I think it's blindingly dull to not take a couple step back and understand how some of the billionaires got their fortune through misfortune and tough spins. It takes opportunity, and it takes a man with the will to push through and take that opportunity. By the way, welcome to the millionaire club, Stardusk. Coous made it to the top with his pure hard work before you sadly... If you take the time and watch the movie I suggested you watch (Which also is the life story of billionare Chris Gardner), you would see that when opportunity reared it's head, Chris jumped on it as fast as possible. He did this despite spending his life as a beggar for a few months. In summary, success is a culmination of work and opportunity. Though it would be a jest to say that everyone in America has this opportunity, and many of us are too lazy to even pursue any of these opportunities. I hope you consider the prior statements before you reply, and my apologies if I seemed angry.

Alright... I'll go mod some delicious cake to add into portal. I will make this lie a truth!

I'll see you in Forbes Magazine, Coous. Just put a little elbow grease in it, and you will be there in no time.

Good question, I'll answer from a Dragon Age hater perspective. When you have played games that have an incredible amount of freedom to move around, you tend to dislike games with invisible borders at every corner. When you've played games that allow you to swing your sword and cast spells in real time, you prefer those kinds of games. When you play games that allow you to modify it in its entirety -- that is to say landscapes, races, buildings, scripts, everything. -- you tend to stick with games like that. Dragon age didn't appeal to me, it felt like KotOR II. I'm done with games that allow you to be skilless in order to win, like Dragon Age. It's heavily statistics, and little action. The choices are funny, and the characters are unique, but there is no freedom of movement. You're always chained to the main quest. I just can't get interested in a game with no landscape or exploration beyond the beaten path. Once you become a slave of one of the best games in the known universe (In your own opinion, of course), you shun everything else. It's as simple as that.

LHammonds, I think I might like you a bit with that statement, but I believe that State government in this day and age have no real influence nor say in whether they are a part of this Union or not. I believe that resistance to constitutional degradation will come as a peasant revolt, not an organized state uprising. Oh... and if you ever lose your guns to the government, I will supply you with a nice hunting crossbow. It works similar to a repeating rifle, and kills all the same. A bit expensive though, so is are the bolts. The recent movie "The Road" taught me that flare guns can also be a good defense tool.... Haha.... The government won't take our guns, they aren't that stupid. ------ On topic to the thread, I hear a good deal of the 'pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom'. I think that this is nonsense at this day and era, to which I mean no offense to my fellow countrymen. That was turned into school-fed nonsense in the post war era (Though you still see success stories, and plenty of counter-argument to that point. By all means disagree with this post). The American Ideals as of today, in my good opinion, is more on the basis of corporate support. That is to say, the mobilization of government, military, and civilian workforce to support our deeply entrenched corporate economy. That's what is happening in Afghanistan, as a little birdy told me that Tajikstan has a wonderful supply of natural gas. Need to slowly get that pipeline to the coast... I wonder who's next after Afghanistan... I won't draw any conclusions! Iran..... Conspiracy is fun in small doses. The point is, the ideals out country grew on have changed to an extent. The changes are written in the history books in broad daylight. American Ideals have changed since the 1700's, but to keep public morale in the green we have outlined that old worn statement in the constitution that reads life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No poor man will ever become a fortune 500 company CEO, and even the middle class will have little opportunity to pursue this happiness that I hear so much about. That includes me for sure. I guess you could win the lottery... Thanks for listening!

http://obviatemedia.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lunchablespizza.jpg Yum. I'll have what He's having... :sweat: I wish I had more time to play on the forums...

That has a little bit of truth, but don't forget that they have courses in school for computers these days. The old people don't get to go back school elementary school and learn computer technology. It's peer pressure really. There wasn't a kid at my old HS who didn't know everything there was about computers. Even the most redneck kid knew his way around MS word (Due to it being needed for a class paper). As for adults, they were not as fast to pick it up as some of the adults never needed to have contact with computers unless it they needed it for a job. It was I who urged my parents to buy out household's first Windows 95 as I needed it for school (and to play games, which was what EVERYONE was doing at my school). In summary, It's not like children had an inherent biological capacity to outclass adults in computers, it's simply about them having more opportunity to do so.

Prohibition did nothing but increase demand, and decrease supply to zero. The decrease of supply to zero based on any legislation (This applies to weed too!) will always cause an increase of criminal activity caused by an incredible increase of demand. Like you said, prohibition caused the rise of the Mafia in America. It stopped the free market from marketing a certain product, and jammed the demand through the roof. Since the supplier could not be one of our fine institutions, it fell under the hands of those who would break the law. As you can probably guess, a High demand of a product can make the seller very wealthy. If the seller is selling an illegal substance with a high amount of demand, that seller can make a very pretty penny. The same holds for weed, and if beer happens to become Illegal again, the same will happen again. Besides, look at the current tax on Alchohol! Our (American) goverment makes a pretty penny off of beer anyways. Banning beer will only increase our ghastly national debt. I'm bringing up the economics of beer. I believe it is the greatest ramification of banning beer. That's an opinion FYI.

Not replying to anyone in particular. Like the fool I am, I have only skimmed over what everyone has said up to yet.... My time is constrained ATM... I'm someone who supports the Minority (No matter how minor). I'm sure I could be brought evidence where I support the Majority, but for the most part I like to give my hand for the little people. I've always thought of Majority and Minority as more of tools of control than real gauges of popular opinion. Like anything it can be changed at someone's leisure. The "Bandwagon" effect in order to sell products is an example. For example... Zippo Brand Cigarette commercials that make you think that the majority of people smoke or want to smoke. It's a VERY important method of gaining support/money from people, and has been used to curb public opinion on something in many instances... I just wish I had the time to find them. In my honest opinion, the Use of Minority or Majority is the same thing as Statistics... It IS statistics. No real truth can come from an article that expresses one side as having a Majority opinion over Minority opinion. You can never have a truly concise answer with that sociological tool.

I suppose the only relevant opinion is one based on fact. If fact is not present, the opinion has no merit. It is simply an uneducated stance that someone takes based on his/her limited knowledge. If you have taken the time to research your point it is not an opinion, but could quite possible be a fact. A fact should be listened too carefully, and acknowledged. An opinion should be acknowledged by an opposing opinion. When one opinion has enough facts that are both relevant and numerous then that opinion wins the argument. It becomes.... fact.... That's just my opinion I suppose.... It's up to you to make sense of it, I'm still entitled to it. Any opposing opinions? :laugh:

Eh? Oblivion of course. I tried Dragon Age, and boasted to my friends how I was going to be a 'game-breaking' modder. After a day of playing, I got bored and sold it for 20 bucks. I'm sure I made someone happy for selling it so low a day after its release, more happy than I was... *sigh* Fallout 3 has good gameplay/RP. The story was good, but lacked essence. I also had a hard time modeling anything with fallout. The engine made it hard to make anything unique. Oblivion made me the modeler I am today... not saying much, but I owe it one.

Hate... hate... hate... I hate how Hoshi goes off on hard-to-understand Haiku. I wonder if it is depression? I'm so depressed... why can't I understand Hoshi! Hehe, On-topic. I'm under the impression that hate and like are learned reactions based on experience of positive and negative actions. Silver DNA puts it best, but allow me to extrapolate. Racism is a form of hate, no? There is debate that Racism is caused by a learned response. Parents, peers, and powers that be are proven to be an influence in what people think at all ages. This includes the formation of hateful opinion about an object, or group. Apathy, as Vagrant already describes, is the lack of any response to a subject due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. I don't see it as a bad thing, as it is better than hate-filled propaganda towards an unknown. Ignorance is bliss....

We are obviously interpreting this differently. I have read the initial post to focus more narrowly than you appear to. Yes, I know Hitler approved and influenced many battle and invasion plans, but he did not develop detailed plans. No leaders at that level do. He made many, many "suggestions", but this is not how I would define day to day control. Of course, you appear to see it differently. (I would suggest that someone like Eisenhower would also be too far removed from day to day control to be applicable. Just because someone received daily reports and made some decisions on troop-movements does not, in my mind, equate to day-to-day control. I think approximately a single army would be the farthest removed you can be. Again, my opinion.) I misread your initial post, you have my sincere apology. It is wise to explore the 'new age' generals that do not have to be present on the battlefield in order to command. Technology at those times were advanced enough to give a clear and concise view of the battlefield, and it can be said that educated decisions can be executed from the position of 'Arm-Chair general'. I do understand that it is nothing like the generals of the 1700's and previous, and perhaps they do not grasp enough control to be considered a general, but they do hold supreme authority. All major movements, as you said, had to approve battle plans. It can also be said that both Eisenhower and Hitler sat in the same rooms as the 'generals' and discussed tactics. In the end, whatever was decided was based on whether Hitler or Eisenhower approved. It's a fine line between active command, and passive command. I can understand why you would see them less as candidates. @Maharg67 Agreed, Russian winters have stopped many's advance into Russia. It's their greatest strength...

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb, known more commonly as Saladin, is my choice for the greatest military commander. To keep it short, he protected his empire from the zealous, and sometimes well-trained crusaders with his mind and good tactical moves. His armies were not professional, they were more akin to the armies the west sent during the Peasant's Crusade, but they still recaptured Jerusalem 2 times from the knights of Europe. As far as generals go, he was also generous, and kind. His diplomatic acts with Richard the Lion is proof of this. There are also other examples of his kindness, but he did not let kindness get the better of his actions. At his death, he donated much of his money to charity and was even respected enough by western kings to have a marble sarcophagus made for him by Wilhelm II of Germany. Not as flashy as some choices, but I'm bored of western warfare. Oh, and for the record, Hitler did play a major role on where troops moved in WW2. It was he who split his forces to Leningrad and Stalingrad, which in turn cost him the battle of Stalingrad leading to his defeat in WWII. Hitler is an historical figure that cannot be ignored. The rule that makes you lose accreditation only applies when you compare something or someone else to Hitler. Stating he did not have any historical value is BS. He existed, he breathed/lead/killed. He is relevant to the topic. P.M. me if you want more evidence of Stalin and Hitler working directly with military tactics. I'd be happy to educate you. Disclaimer: I do not support Hitler, as the conversation may boil down to when it gets nasty.

@Kean Thanks for the feedback. :smile: @Topic We need technology to catch up with the Idea before we can start putting any hypothesis into practical use.