It's me treating my private history like it matters, but at the point they used picking a lock as a narrative moment, is the point I inwardly groaned. Not, like, a moment where you decide to turn off someones life support or not. No, picking a lock. Because that's so much a story moment.

It's worth reading these things, but taken with a pinch of salt.

    For those looking for a healthy mix of supernatural stealth game and emotionally driven interactive fiction, The Novelist is likely the best (and perhaps only) game on the market able to pull off a convincing portrayal of a nuclear family on the verge of collapse, and neatly ties in a helpful ghost-thing that allows you to experiment with balancing a career and a family. It’s a beautiful, if brief game about what’s really important in life, mixed in with a bit of suspense to keep you hooked. But I’d be lying if it didn’t sock me right in the gut from its opening moments until the bitterly ironic end.

I await with bated breath, but only because I think you have used that phrase 3 times now. You always promise to come back with something later as if you have nothing to say, but at the same time you have juuuust enough time to quote 1 thing and wholesale disagree with it without hardly any justification.

Thus the 10 second youtube clips. I'll keep waiting though, since this is a forum and its here for as long as it takes.

Its just going to be a slog if it takes you weeks to formulate a response to 1/10 of the conversation that ensued in the meantime.

No time limit. Don't feel obligated to give 1 sentence "but wait there's more" speeches.

Don't feel compelled to respond, especially if you don't feel up to it, but I'm wondering after the distinction here. If the first portion of your sentence is true, then why isn't "examining the worthiness of [military spending] compared to something more beneficial to the tax payer ... the only point of contention left?"

Sorry, I exacerbated miscommunication with my shorthand.

But:

Quote from: sciborg2 on November 26, 2013, 06:11:08 pm

My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"

So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.

My understanding is that Sci strictly wants to debate where the 1/100th of taxpayer dollars that funds NASA could be better or differently spent to achieve more...

And so I shall henceforth limit my engagement in this context to:

Quote from: Madness on November 28, 2013, 01:13:35 pm

Quote from: sciborg2 on November 28, 2013, 06:37:14 am

My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.

Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?

[Insert research other than NASA here]; same question...

I'm not straight on the specifics of 'skeptical materialists' or the 'qualia of Truth' but I was asking after "the possibility of finding Truth via drugs" as well (you somewhat addressed the "one deception over the other").

I had hoped you were simply honouring your namesake but you were so convincing .

Lol.

EDIT: I still think that, even if it's just a forum on the internet that never has any impact outside it's pages o'Web, it is important to articulate how we might do better with spending our collective human time (in research expenditures). We can do better.