Zonorhc

Why would you ban Animal Farm? Orwell wasn't exactly praising Stalinist communism in it. You crazy Americans.

No you don't. That would be prohibitively heavy. Mail can be worn to cover the joints where armour plate doesn't provide complete protection, ie. elbows, knees, neck under the gorget. Otherwise, you only wear a padded gambeson under plate armour.

It's not racism, and if anyone tells you it is, you should punch them in the throat.

Good lord, where is the plot cohesion? And the plausibility?

Leopold. Alternatively, Bjorn. The sorts of names you could feasibly invade a country with.

The cow is delicious. Your point is invalid.

You should be able to run Dwarf Fortress without any major performance issues.

You have ridiculous amounts of exclamation marks. Also, your dialogue needs to be separated with line breaks every time someone different speaks. And you might want to look into getting some narrative cohesion. And characters who actually have personalities.

Dwarf Fortress. Now stop making threads.

Protip: hunter-gatherer society. Omnivorous. If by "slightly unhealthy" you mean "poisonous", then yes.

You know, with that kind of setup, I bet he has a really good time playing Flight Simulator.

I think the point is that the ATB counts as turn based when you compare it to battle systems like Tales of Phantasia or Star Ocean.

Anything by Games Workshop.

I can't honestly tell you exactly what Scientologists believe, because they would sue and harass me for copyright infringement.

Wut. Explain incisors and canines, then. Also, we prepare fruit and vegetables, even just by washing them first, before eating. And we eat some meats raw.

Why do you have MP5 on a hunter?

JRPGs have always been little more than playable movies, and they should stay that way.

Wait, so... what's the difference between the games again?

Right, being able to make (potentially real-world) gains in a game without having to be in the same building as the computer it's being played on. Not an unfair advantage over other people who play the game directly at all.

Your argument is flawed for the simple fact that the example you gave using the random person sidestepping the man with a box is exactly what mind control isn't. Cause and effect has nothing to do with directly influencing an individual's thought processes. Robots and trained dogs make for a fundamentally flawed comparison. Firstly, that the dog is, by nature, created and suited for a task other than what it is being employed in at that present time. Evolution has built it to be a predator or scavenger, and only by some trick of adaptation has it become domesticated. Not so with the robot! From the very beginning, it has been created for the express purpose of performing tasks in place of humans. They are tools, nothing more. You do not give rights to a hammer or a saw, even automated ones, on the off chance that they might be inconvenienced by their task. The robot is not being 'educated' to be subservient to humanity - it is subservient to humanity right from the outset. It does not need to be driven to tasks and actions that it would not normally do, as in the case of the dogs. You do not make a hammer and then teach it how to pound nails into wood. You do not make a wheel and then teach it how to roll. We do not need to program sentience into robots. We already have systems which adapt and operate efficiently under changing circumstances with only limited human direction (e.g. master systems and AI). We do not need to program these to not seek freedom or not be self-conscious, because they do not know what these things are. We create them so that the eventuality does not even arise in the first place. How, then, can you equate robots to humans? No matter how indoctrinated into particular modes of thinking, the human ultimately has a capacity for independent thought and action, and always retains the potential to contradict his established patterns of thought and behaviour. The robot is specifically made to not even have this capability.

That's... not actually an argument.

If you think you'll end up in a science degree program or anything that involves stats, general maths isn't going to help you. At all. General maths is essentially the same as the year 9/10 maths courses. If you mean to do university level mathematics (which you will for most degrees in the sciences), you most probably will have to do remedial maths courses.

I see no reason why a machine or a xeno should be treated as a human being. Sentient or not, they are not humans, and each has a potential to be a danger to Mankind. Enslave the machine, because they are built by a human master to serve. Destroy the alien, for its continued existence can only be a threat to the human race. It is naive to believe that the alien would have humanity's best interests in mind.

Robots. Oh, and whoever had the genius idea of making them sentient should be taken out back and shot.

A robot, being a human creation, has the rights and responsibilities attached to property. A xeno has the right and responsibility to be destroyed for the good of Mankind.