Bay 12 Games Forum

I reckon just a simple:

      Slaves to Armok: God of Blood   
      Chapter II: Dwarf Fortress

And then:

      Histories of ____ and ____

with a little slider along each side so you can switch between nouns.

Let's not forget that America is not a "proper" democracy but a republic like most western countries. Instead of the people making decisions the people elect someone and they get to have control over whatever position they've been elected in for a certain time period (barring extreme events when some authority intervenes with another, but generally they are not obliged to but people are sacked because of a sense of fairness, them being incompetent at their job or a party removing those who think would be detrimental in an election.)

It's not even a direct republic since the people don't vote for the president but instead vote for their electoral college official who then vote for the president, and the electoral college isn't tied to voting the way they elected for so a small group of people can appoint someone as president regardless how the country voted.

Isn't the technological time period meant to roughly correspond to before 1400 in which case if the first prototypes of proper submarines were being made in 17th then I can't imagine they be in use, especially in wide spread use in the DF world. I know the before 1400 is a rough guideline (for example I think dwarves should be able to use steam power even though it's non-period because they live next to magma a lot of the time and they're, well dwarves it's their sort of thing.) but I don't imagine dwarves wanting to go on the water much, much less underneath it (I could see them being culturally hydrophobic).

I could see elves using diving bells for harvesting things of the seafloor is they live next to the coast because it's fairly simple technology wise and elves seem like the exploring all areas of nature type. Human's I don't think would really need or want to go underwater except for maybe salvaging loot of shipwrecks so maybe using a diving bell there. I just don't see there being much of a need or use for proper submarines in the DF world.

I had a civilization called "The love handles"... yeah.

Played the demo. Combat and is heaps fun. Don't think I'll pay $20 for. Is waiting for the overgrowth, then I'll get that (especially with the new engine and MULTIPLAYER!)

Si! Un cerveza mas por favor.

Oh wait we're removing the alcohol 

He is both mortal and exhaustible. He dies if he gets hurt to much and he loses his grip id he holds on to long or gets swung around enough. Though I give you it would be hard to kill in real life but also in real life you don't have to find and exact glowing marker. And arrow to the eye, sword to neck/head/other sensitive areas or cutting the spine would also cause serious damage. Even cuts along the body should be enough to cause pain which disorients the creature.

Again sorry not DF related. I promise this will be my last arguement post.

But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.

Maths is an arbitrary system based on a few basic rules an then used to predict an reveal. You can easily have different rules and turn out with a different system like non-euclidean geometry which changes the nature of parallel lines.

The thing about science is that it's all about predicting and explaining what happens in the world and how. Anything which isn't observable isn't considered to be useful to model. And yes as someone pointed out before science isn't "the truth", any good scientist will tell you it's the best approximation we can come up with. If there is inconsistencies between the currently accepted model and what actually happens and change is need and this has been done in almost every major scientific discovery. This science doesn't say a theory is "absolutely right" but if something is more precise and simplistic. For example ancient astrologers had worked out a system where the sun does revolve around the earth and they could predicate celestial movements fairly accurately but the system was so convoluted and had slight inconsistencies that a model of the earth revolving around the sun became accepted as more accurate.

Also about atheism being less rational becuase no one can prove the existence or non-existence of God(s) then surely it is as rational to believe anything else which can't be disproven. I could say that there's a giant invisible hippo under my bed which you can't interact with in anyway, you'd call me illogical for believing in it but I can use the same arguement that you can't disprove it therefore you can't pass any judgment. No-one's disproved the existence of fairies either.