obfuscator

thread got creepy

We had flurries here a few days back, will probably still be three weeks+ before we get consistent snow though.

Done.

You can't even make daedric light armour, can you?

That would be pretty cool. And I think daedric armour > dragon because it's so much harder to get the mats.

DLC releases have little to do with developers lol, it's just another way the management tries to get more money out of the customer.

In other news, this was basically our offense tonight against TB.

What course are you doing Rach? I'm interested in ICT and am going to apply for some course soon at my local unis. I'm doing Computer Science but apparently the course is more similar to Computing. Computer Science usually has more theory but we do a lot more practical stuff. If you wanna do stuff like programming, networking, understanding computer structure then Computing (or Comp Sci) is what you're after. IT is a good thing to go into really. I'm kind of curious - I've heard from a computer science major that I shouldn't go into college for programming, because I'll hate it if I do. Has that happened to you? A lot of people in IT hate programming. It depends on what you like doing.

post

New website is gross. Looks like any other generic game website. Seems like every re-design they've done has been worse than the previous one. I want the old rsc website back :(

Actually setting up the installation isn't the problem. It's proper integration that's the issue. Actually pushing out the update might take a few days; but there are months if not years of planning and configuring behind it.

I'm kind of surprised you're in comp sci and not just all using laptops tbh..

Changing an operating system in a large infrastructure (like a university) is a lot more work than you'd think. For example at my work (about 1500 employees from what I remember), it's basically a three year project to go from xp -> 7.

I have my last test on friday, actually.

Bleh. I can't stand training two handed. It sucks for combat.

Okay, that makes more sense. I still disagree, because babies certainly do infringe upon the rights of a full person. Here's the thing - you say you treat them the same - so abortion is acceptable when a right less than life is being infringed upon. Yet you don't support this once the child is born...yet you say they're the same? Yes, it does clear it up. Once again - a normal pregnancy does not infringe upon rights a young baby does not as well. It's arguable in fact, that pregnancy is more convenient than actually having to feed, change, clothe, bathe, etc a baby, but I'll differ as I've yet to experience either.

Yeah, nice to see some consistency from him. On another note, Crosby 2 goals 2 assists in his first game back after missing 10 months. Ridiculous. His first was a a beauty.

Well, you flip flop between "one requires consciousness to be a person", and then "well here's why someone without consciousness is a person". Either those not self-aware are people, or they aren't. Their location changes nothing as to their personhood. Now, if you want to agree that abortion is acceptable despite the fetus' personhood simply due to its location, then I understand where you're coming from. But changing the definition at will to suit whatever example is thrown at you isn't good proof.

In your opinion drinking isn't happiness. It's quite easy for someone else to claim differently as happiness is subjective. Once again, your definition of what a person makes is nonsensical, that's the problem.

Ahh, of course, the "it doesn't apply to you so you can't have an opinion" argument. We don't have self-awareness until we're two, right? So once again - we should be able to murder or young children since "it's not the killing of another person, since once again that means having self-awareness". Okay, hold on there a moment. Those rights are not one giant right, they're separate. The right of a mother to abort a fetus falls under the rights to -Life -Liberty -Pursuit of Happiness -Security of person. I've arranged them in the order of importance. This is quite straightforward - abortion takes a life. You can argue about a human life, or life of a person, but what you can't deny is that something living is being killed. So what you're arguing is that the mothers' rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and security of person all supersede the fetus' right to life (as that is always what is being infringed upon by abortion). I agree with you that the mothers' right to life supersedes the fetus' right to life. If these rights happen to be in direct conflict, one must supersede the other, and it stands to reason that the right of the host must supersede the right of the "parasite". Granted. But it's easy to make an argument that a woman's right to drink and do drugs fall directly under her right to pursuit of happiness! (a rather sad attempt at happiness, I admit, but to each their own....). Yet you just said (and I agree) that a mother does not have the right to exercise a right that is trivial in comparison to our primary right - life. Life is greater than liberty. Life is greater than pursuit of happiness. Life is greater than security of person. Which is why whenever a conflict of rights involves the right to life it must always supersede.

1. Considering such a scenario is beyond banal, not even babies have self awareness. Most humans achieve self-awareness around age 2. 2. The point that it's totally physically dependent on the mother makes the situation a bit more morally grey, consider the violinist argument posted in the link. 3. It's the combination of lack of physical awareness, complete physical dependence, and the effects it has on the women that makes abortion moral. A lot of people don't have self awareness. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find physical dependence to be an acceptable reason to murder...well, ridiculous. Once again - I agree with the stipulation that when two entities share a body, the rights of the host must supersede the rights of the parasite, or leech, or whatever you want to call it. But only if the rights are greater or equal in the first place. I've used this example before - would you say it is moral for a mother to drink and do hard drugs while expecting? I don't think so, society generally disproves of it.... Yet this is a clear example of a mothers' right not superseding a right of the unborn child - precisely because the right of the child that would be infringed upon is so much greater than the right of the mother's (right to life/health vs right to...party?).

So then you'd agree that killing a fetus is wrong if it was self-aware?

And what you've consistently failed to explain is why murdering non-conscious humans is wrong if the only qualification for personhood is self-awareness.

An excellent choice.

I believe tables are also more expensive to render, although most modern browsers/computers don't have much of an issue. I think for mobile phones specifically tables can sometimes be an issue (ready.mobi recommends not using them, for instance).