|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
First, I went with rarely used avatars for a while. Then I found this one, apparently a priestess of Mammon from some module or AP installment. It is an exquisite image, with the obscene head shell, the hanging pieces of fabric that look like someone's drapes had a bad day, and her disapproving expression is lovely, precisely on the verge of a caricature. It properly reflects how I feel here only rarely. :-)
Writer's block is a catch all term for a few very different situations. One is that you are a lazy bum, but if so, solve it. The others are more interesting. One is that you have focused too long on this, and you need something fresh. The answer here is to get new experiences some way. Try doing something you don't usually do. Try ballet, museums, concerts, sports events, movies, read a new kind of book, whatever gets you in a new mood. You may also need some rest from it, so take a day or two off. The last real cause is that you are doing something wrong. Your mind is telling you something already done doesn't work. Try retracing your steps, see if writing something differently helps. And, of course, it may be a signal that you don't want to do what you are doing. Honesty is a very good policy with writer's block.
Ireland in particular seems like an unfair comparison, considering their deeply divided political situation, armed resistance since several decades back, several large bombings, and so on. It was interesting to see Northern Ireland when I was there in 1992. The cities were much like cities elsewhere, but the inland and smaller towns showed the conflict clearly, with british soldiers on every main street in booths with automatic rifles, patrols in the countryside by heavily armed soldiers, and so on.
Heh. The barbarians had ample help from basically everyone else in keeping the Ages Dark. And of course, Rome was no longer the most important part of the empire anymore. I would say tearing down the power structures of the church would be a good idea to minimize the time needed for recovery.
And no, a Sustainable world is by no means a requirement for everything humanity does. Sustainability means stuff can be kept as they currently are indefinitely. Humanity is better at adapting than sustaining. I would say an Adaptable future is a better idea.
It is also a question of how the state has handled the principles of Rule of Law. In a state where people get locked up with no explanation why, where people are sent to other countries for torture, where the state tortures people openly, where everything of interest to the public is classified, where people are subjected to intrusive searches and radiation when traveling, and so on... why should the police act any better? The police force in every country is always an area that bears watching for misuse of power - but they aren't going to do a better job than those above them demand. This situation isn't going to change unless some very high-level orders and policies are publicly investigated, torn up, and restitutions are made.
Then don't kill them, obviously. If they are a real person that associates with a group, it's murder. It is when they see themselves as merely a part of a group that they become valid targets.
Really, I am not serious. The mere problems involved in finding out what they are thinking makes it obviously unworkable.
However: There are so many ways to lose your individuality today. Everyone and their grandma wants you to give up your individuality, replacing it with obedience toward whatever. The idea of the well-oiled society where each person is merely a cog turning smoothly along with everyone else is surprisingly popular despite decades of suffering as consequences of the attempts that were made toward this in various places. If not nations, religions or organizations, it's mobs, riots and the like.
NOBODY should use these techniques to reach their goals. Humanity DOES answer to it, but the consequences are always terrible. And a response to it could be to only value the lives of these people as much as they value their own individuality. Consider it a thought experiment.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
It isn't murder if the person killed is only part of a group and sees him/herself as such. We aren't murderers for clipping toenails.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
No. Not because they took stuff. Because they consider themselves to only be part of a group.
Hmph. Whether you killing someone is terrible should be dependent on how much that person considers him/herself a person. Thus, kill someone who does, that's murder, standard procedure. Someone who sees him/herself only as part of a collective, well, we don't consider ourselves to be murderers for clipping our toenails.
Everything would be SO much better if we could abandon the collectivistic, primitive conditioning processes on the trash heap of history.
Yes, the criminals of Europe are mostly of the paladin class, and seeing them fall because of goblin babies is not a pretty sight. And yes, nobody in Europe eats hamburgers, ever.
Exactly. Once you define people as problems, whether immigrants, men, handicapped people, people in poor countries, Westerners, or whatever, you become something you really don't want to be. The point is not to transport enough people off Earth to make things okay on Earth, that's stupid. Giving them incentives to move, however, that would work brilliantly and enrich both those who went and those who stayed. And, to be honest, I am uncertain about whether Columbus' expedition or the first moon landing was more expensive relative to the whole economy at the time. I know that from the Wright brothers' flight, passenger airlines took a few decades only. We already did the first space flights, it's time for the next steps.
It is for anyone who says "zero emissions".
As for moving people, how many traveled by plane in 2013?
As for cheaper alternatives to energy production methods, we have seen biofuel production take up food production land, ethanol be abandoned due to engine damage, wind power surviving because of tax subsidies... Colour me not all that impressed so far. One day, you will undoubtedly be right, of course.
There is no way to do that NOW, no. Give it time, thejeff. The point of technological advance has never been to do precisely what the next advance makes possible. The point of antibiotics wasn't to cure one specific infection. The point of the electric calculators of the eighties was never to sum up 2+4 or writing 5318008 upside down. When people asked Maxwell the point of his equations, he said "what is the point of a newborn child?" You are right, in the first phases, we would not be able to transport people off planet fast enough. That doesn't mean we never will, though, and it is quite possible that an increased standard of living in the poorer countries will solve this issue by itself. However, prevent that increase of standards because you want to conserve energy and it won't happen. As for it being a utopia, I much prefer working toward such a world to dooming us all to a "sustainable" dystopia. Oh, and the problem with the AGW alarms is that they always claim we will all be dead in exactly fifty years. In 2007, that was set to 2050. In 2010, it was instead 2060. In 2020, it is a fair bet it will be 2070.
Honestly, that was uncalled for, OQ. The point of my post was that the idea of a Sustainable Future is not much of a vision to aim for. What is the goal? Keep doing what we do here on Earth? Is that as far as we can dream today? Pitiful. And, no, I am not saying space-based solar power. I am not saying we should lift up every little gram of weight we need from Earth. When we do go out into space, we will make an infrastructure for it. Zero-gee production facilities, mass driver networks, railgun launches, new materials, all of it. You make a whole lot of assumptions and call me on things I did not say. Simultaneously, we need to reshape things on Earth, with truly generative innovation fueled by a severe slashing of copyright and other IP laws. Our politicians have no reference beyond the early nineties and still think music comes on plastic disks. They are also victims of this neo-luddism, and need to be replaced by people able to think further.
Ummm... We Westerners live lives of luxury. Compared to the dark ages, we live lives that kings would dream of. We have food. We have running, clean water. We have education, transportation, money, dental care, other health care, and when we die one day, there are cemetaries for our corpses. We usually don't have to fear for our lives. Our children usually grow up. And so on, and so forth.
All this requires energy. Energy today comes from oil and nuclear power and coal, and thus many people draw the conclusion that since these things are bad for the environment, we must all conserve energy to... Something. It is unclear where that line of thought goes, to me. It seems pretty much shot down that we will be able to conserve our way out of this particular conundrum. "No carbon dioxide pollution" is surprisingly a popular idea. Well, it would mean shutting down every single energy expenditure. Heating, city lights, transportation, electricity. We are indeed talking about a post-apocalypse here. The proponents say it is just a question of changing a few things, not our whole lives. This is the currently dominating idea for the future.
I say b~~&!@~%. Solve the problem instead. The universe is full of energy, so let's go get it. We live in a miserable little 1 G gravity well. For a species that can do what we can, it is time we used that ingenuity to expand further. Start colonies. Launch spaceships. Build space elevators. We won't be able to forever, so we need to go while we can. Not to mention the risks of having a little vertical "hello!" from a big rock one day. In such a scenario, there will be absolutely no lack of jobs.
Let me add the "seek a glorious future in the colonies" scenario to the list.
*I remove the thing on my head, showing... something. It stirs, I close my eyes, and it surges out to consume everyone with its blasphemous geometries and cyclopean... uhh... something. Once it has eaten (or turned insane) everyone but me, it surges back and I put the helmet back on over it.*
I wish for someone sane to talk to.
What would really save police lives is if they simply sent out drones with automatic weapons and gunned down all the protesters. Not one policeman would be remotely injured. See now why safety of police officers before taking any other consideration can be a very bad idea?
Policemen and soldiers (and others) have chosen to take jobs that can be quite risky. Nobody is forced to be one. It is, quite literally, part of the job. Certainly, give them what protective gear they NEED. It's ridiculous they would need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles to deal with a peaceful protest - if so, they are severely incompetent at their job.
Precisely. Bad idea all around. Nobody would protest if they use it in the storming of a heavily fortified drug villa or the like... But these people are citizens choosing to express their displeasure IN PRECISELY THE WAY THE ESTABLISHMENT WANTS THEM TO. Peaceful assembly is a good deal for the establishment for many reasons... Not the least of which is that the only alternative is armed resistance, militarization, and, possibly, civil war. It behooves everyone involved to be careful before peaceful protests are cracked down on.
In other news, people really need to start suing newspapers and the like for adjusting their reports to the official government line.
Oh, and, take a look at the latest Battlefield game, Battlefield: Hardline for more of the same. Propaganda today takes many forms.
Like all other settings, a megadungeon becomes valid only by the vibrancy of its setting. This is acheived by theme, style, plots, NPCs, events and so on. A million rooms full of monsters doing nothing is indescribably boring. Divide it up into communities, nations, heck, even civilizations, make memorable NPCs, interesting and far-reaching plotlines, dastardly villains, interesting problems, differentiated "terrains" and so on, and you have something far better... though it doesn't fit the traditional (Undermountain etc) megadungeon concept very well anymore.
The problem is that you are in essence sending them a message that they NEED this stuff by giving it to them. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. One day you will be shot by the Enemy, then you will need body armour. Or do you want your children to grow up with a single parent?" And so on. When wearing all this gear, of course, you take more risks, which actually make things worse. Not to mention it leads to an arms race. If the people who want to take out police officers need military weapons to do so, then military weapons is what they will get. When police departments have changed the rules in the other direction, such as having single officers patrolling, violence has gone down, both against others and against the police. Removing the stuff seems like a brilliant idea.