[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="217" id="3386256"] Real science is not done by consensus or appeal to Authority. So neither saying that "most believe" or that So and So believes is a valid point in science. The data, love it or hate it, are all that matters. And right now, the data does not support any definitive conclusion. Period.[/quote] Well and succinctly said. Bravo.
[quote who="Jafo" reply="207" id="3386200"] Actually no. 'Misinformed' is not the same as 'stupid'. Educated, intelligent people CAN be misinformed. The two are not mutually exclusive.... [/quote] Look at the rest of his quote. "have difficulty accepting facts they do not like" isn't saying the same thing as misinformed. At best it's calling people willfully ignorant. It's saying "you're wrong because you disagree with
[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="205" id="3386170"] Intelligent? Highly educated? Well, that's a subjective evaluation, but one thing is certain about the climate change deniers - they are either misinformed, or have difficulties accepting facts they do not like. [/quote] That's a fancy, well worded way of calling people who don't believe in AGW stupid.
[quote who="jackswift85" reply="60" id="3386028"] Also, don't forget that all of us are framed by our experiences. Humans tend to have their viewpoints skewed based on their own lives and memories, and very few of us have the ability to completely absorb someone else's mindset, to truly imagine what it would be like to be someone else (not just "If I were rich, I'd buy more things" and "If I were poor, I'd buy less things"). The single mom who works two jobs trying to ma
[quote who="Borg999" reply="63" id="3386056"] Brad and othesr have repeately used this forum to complain about taxes, entitlement and the poor. This thread was just another angle/approach to those arguments. I was reading between the lines of the OP's intent, not the book. [/quote] I'm with Brad. I hate the poor. They smell funny. And they dirty the sidewalk that I might want to walk down. Which means I have to get my golden sh
[quote who="Borg999" reply="57" id="3386022"] A lot of analysis of the "true meaning" of the book going on, but if you read between the lines, the true meaning of the whole thread is: The rich are worthy, the poor (and middle class) are not worthy. This is just another veiled argument for providing the wealthy with corporate welfare at the expense of education, infrastruture, tempoarary unemployment benefits, etc, etc.[/quote] Yawn. Back up y
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="23" id="3385985"] Reading the tea leaves, but I think Stardock has expanded in size to the point where they can actually develop multiple games at one point. So when Frogboy says Fallen Enchantress will continue to go forward with meaningful updates that we’re funding with the DLC purchases. He means that they're making enough money from DLC sales to continue investing money in development for the franchise.&n
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="21" id="3385958"] I want GalCiv 3 or new Star Control before a new big Elemental. FH DLC or expansion, that's fine, but the next big game should be in space![/quote] I agree too. GC3!
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="54" id="3385980"] I found particularly pleasing your statement and would only add at the end, "without infringing on others' rights." which I think you believe as well as you put it in another paragraph. [/quote] I do. The sanctity of individual rights is the key to the whole thing. If that goes away it invalidates the whole social contract. [quote who="DrJBHL" reply="54" id="3385980"] Overall,
[quote who="Chasbo" reply="49" id="3385946"] The thing I don't like about Ayn Rand is that no matter how her ideas are intellectualized, justified the basic meaning of them is I will do whatever it takes to get all I can and to hell with everybody else. I was not brought up to think like that. That is not what the American way means to me. [/quote] That's not in line her thinking at all. Her idea is basically rational-self interest governed
Things I'd like to see: Legendary Heroes with more depth. Deeper quests, more tactical battle options, deeper diplomacy, deeper hero system, deeper loot/item creation, deeper maps (dungeoneering? multi-level?). Really I want a Legendary Heroes 2 that stays true to what makes Legendary Heroes Legendary Heroes but adds meaningful depth to all of LH's systems. I want the empire portion of the game to feel grander and more strategic and, in the same game,
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="42" id="3385906"] That's where civility enters it. When people are civil, they can sit and discuss things. If one has to deal with a churl then best not to. When encountering one of these: "Be civil or be gone." is the only approach to adopt. Either they will self civilize and become manageable , or not. In the latter case, one simply breaks contact.[/quote] In Rand's view, at least from the way I understand it from several of her boo
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="32" id="3385831"] The elderly, poverty stricken, disabled, infirmed, widows and orphans, disabled soldiers and first responders all are "entitled" to societal support to one degree or another. Those are the norms of our society. To deny this is to deny the social contract and civility. No society can exist without them. Even wolf packs have norms of conduct.[/quote] Rand's point goes beyond this. It's a much more concerned
[quote who="Shadraen" reply="35" id="3385776"] I think they would get a LOT of support and additional funding from their fans if they went that route. Heck, Torment received over 4 million in extra funding. Not sure how many additional features that will help pay for, but I think it's worth a shot [/quote] I think this isn't really true. Ever since KickStarter got popular fans see it as the solution to everything. It's absolutely NOT additional
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="4" id="3385652"] "best game ever?" is pretty subjective, but add my name to the list of people playing 1000+ hours and still playing. I'd say this is one of the Top 10 Best Strategy Games of all time.[/quote] Same here. It has flaws certainly, but every game does.
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="52" id="3385577"] I hate this definition; it seems to suggest that anything that's free is stolen (air, for example. or the genes to Monsanto's corn.). I think a key element of theft is loss. And in the case of piracy it is particularly difficult to show that anything was lost. [/quote] No, it doesn't suggest that at all. You're playing word games to avoid the point. Air isn't produced throug
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="21" id="3385580"] I have had many debates with people on this topic and it has become very clear to me (and it took awhile because I just couldn't bring myself to believe that they actually felt this way) that their philosophy is that the successful owe the less successful something simply by virtue of being successful. There is a real divide in our society now based on this. [/quote] I think this idea is probably
[quote who="Uvah" reply="14" id="3385551"] Just because someone is successful, wealthy and what have you does in no way give them the right to expect you to be nice to them based on their success and or wealth. You want respect you must first give it. Don't and you know where you can go. End of story![/quote] You have this exactly backwards. Rand was talking about those who are "Takers", those who do not contribute to society but live via handouts and welfare, insistin
It's interesting that people are taking this to be a point about whether or not to be nice to others. That's not what Rand is talking about at all (at least not in this part of the book). She's talking about whether or not people have the right to expect YOU to be nice to THEM regardless of what THEY do to YOU. You are more capable/successful/wealthy than I therefore I should be able to do anything I want to you and you should still be nice/charitable towards me.
I never played Fez, but I hate to see someone give up on their talent because of the whining chattering class who never actually get into the arena and take their shot (to paraphrase an old speech on the subject). [quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="8" id="3385409"]I guess my only real insight is maybe the cancellation was a long time coming. Usually there are many things that build up and it just takes one more to push past the boiling point and decide to give up out of frustratio
[quote who="Cackfiend" reply="26" id="3384964"] Lord Xia's reply in this thread is interesting too. voting no with the reasoning he didnt want SP compromised in order to have MP in the game. Is that really all that people worry about? I think thats a bit silly tbh as they wouldnt have to touch anything balance/feature wise[/quote] A portion of (or most of in my case) the reason why people don't want MP because it will "compromise" SP has nothing to do with features/b
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="20" id="3384811"] As to MP itself, I couldn't care less for the feature, and the stats and info that SD has shared with us to date tends to agree with my point of view. For Civ 4, there was only a very small percentage of users actually making use of MP functionality....and considering the investment required to provide said feature, they would have been better off just not having it for civ 4 either (and I think they could have made a better
[quote who="Cackfiend" reply="9" id="3384665"] all the people that have stated they have friends/family that wont buy FE:LH because it lacks multiplayer. ive found several such posts in just one night of searching these forums and steam forums. Your narrow minded view of "multiplayer is bad for SP players and wont even make stardock money" is incredibly flawed [/quote] I love the line of reasoning that goes "Game X doesn't have feature Y. I want feature Y. Th
[quote quoting="post"] FE:LH is doing well but I believe it could be doing so much better with some multiplayer support. [/quote] Based on what evidence? Historically multiplayer makes up a minuscule portion of TBS player base. And once you account for players that only play multiplayer once or twice to give it a try, in other words cut out those who aren't really multiplayer players, the actual multiplayer portion is so small that it's not worth m
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="15" id="3382986"] Well since you brought it up, I think Felix Hernandez is a better pitcher than Clayton Kershaw. Clayton Kershaw plays for the big-market (Los Angeles) Dodgers so he represents a Firaxis or EA games or Ubisoft and gets a lot of the glitz and glamor simply because he's in Los Angeles. Felix Hernandez plays for the smaller-market-in-the-middle-of-nowhere (Seattle) Mariners so he is a better representative of Stardock. Fe