Harehunter

Actaeon,

You are a person of my own heart.

 

As to your question, western society would not exist as we know it. But that does not mean that it would die out completely either. As long as there are hoarders of books, especially the entire collection of college chemistry books I still have, our technological base could still be rebuilt.

 

It would not be easy, and I suspect there would be a great reduction in human population, either due to scarcity of resources, or battles fought to gain/defend what resources are left.

 

The people who would most likely survive such a technological meltdown would be people of rural areas and remote regions, where they rely less on technology than people like me who make their living at it.

I remember the place well, Lilith. and I was also uncertain. But after searching all my archives, I have to concur with Slarty. Now I realize that my confusion came from playing E2 right after E1, probably just months apart.

It seems that even in Avernum, there are consequences for making bad choices. I, for one, have never given up the opportunity to try to kill Gladwell. There's something about that guy that drives me to it. But I still wait until I am certain I won't need him anymore.

 

As another example, I remember that the topic of killing Motrax in Exile 1 had been problematic, if you hadn't already gotten the hint about the amulet. Ooops.

1997 - I think it was Metacrawler that found "RPG games" on (I think I remember correctly) CNET. From there, it linked directly to www.SpiderwebSoftware.com (that was before it became Avernum.com).

 

I had played "Castle of the Winds", but it tasted kind of flat. Once I had tasted Exile 1 (Version 2), I snapped up Exile 2 (still at Version 1). It was not until last year that I got straightened out on all the versions.

 

I have not yet gotten into Nethergate, and I do not have Geneforge at all. Exile, and then Avernum, took what time I had available (and still does).

I was just about to say something punny, but decided that it may be in poor taste.

 

"My, that foot is tasty."

Why so it is. I just missed it there. I sit corrected.

I guess I just got distracted by the list of titles posted on that the other thread I referenced.

And then there is another set of titles, such as "Ward of Avernum." Didn't this topic come up not long ago?

 

Ah, yes, Here it is.

Cartographers must needs apply a bit of effort in order to get the whole picture. Not that there is anything useful there; just because it is there. I had fun mapping out the Second Avernum Trilogy.

 

BTW, Mr. NightWatchman, I like your signature.

I always used the numeric keypad to move around in the game, so that is how I move around in the terrain editor. To quickly get back to the center of the map, press 5.

 

I know I should have put the margin click zones into place, but I found that I have more control with the keypad.

 

I do use the mouse fly over to update the x,y counters at the top of the screen. Very important to know when programming specials.

If I may interject, by any definition, SW games are RPGs. However, I would put in a class of RPGs that stands above the rest. I play them (and replay them) because Jeff has added an ideal, IMHO, mix of action, strategy, and story plot. Even on replays, I tend to go through all the dialog as if it were the first time. In this fashion, it is more like an interactive book, that also tickles my puzzle-solving meter.

 

I have played a few FPS games, such as Wolfenstein, Doom, and a couple of others. After the first few levels I start to become bored with the repetitive nature of the game. I never lose interest in SW games.

 

I doff my cap to Jeff.

That one is almost beneath me as well.

 

Well, almost. I have been guilty of worse.

Hello Trenton, I have finally gotten some more work to post up this weekend. Hope you're doing well in school.

I apologize for the mess up. It appears that I have 4 source code libraries and the one I picked to upload is the only one calling out for that particular file.

 

I have made a zip file of the images directory and placed it on my website @

http://hasenjs.byethost33.com/downloads/EXSCENED/Images.zip

 

Somethymes this website gets a little loopy. If for some reason the direct link takes you nowheresville, link to the BoE webpage and drill down through the Downloads link.

I did that in my Visual Basic editor. I am going to try to get it converted to C++, but time is a resource I am very short on.

Greetings Arch-Mage. I have had to stay away for a little while. I had a code in my node that was really frustrating. But now I'm back to 'normal'.

Does this model of yours explain the unique personalities of each of the component "cells"? For example, our current interaction, where each of us has had different life experiences, leading us to believe in different things, to have different values. This seems to me to fly in the face of "we are all one organism, we are all the same".

Taking your beginning premise, if I understand correctly, since higher organisms, such as humans, are nothing more than a colony of individual cells, each specialized and therefore interdependent on each, we can then extrapolate that model upon the macrocosm, and apply that same concept to the whole of multi-celled organisms, including human beings.

 

If we are able to do that, then why not extrapolate it further to the scale of solar systems, galaxies, and, yes, to the universe as a whole, which in this model is also a living being that is composed not of cells but off galaxies? Would such a being be sentient, just as we are in comparison to the individual cells that make up our body?

 

And if a sentient being can be made up of units that are themselves sentient, would that mean that it is likely that the individual cells in our bodies are capable of sentience to some degree?

 

Please, I am being serious. This sort of philosophic interchange is fascinating.

You never fail to fascinate me. Your's is a truly fascinating perspective. I have heard of the concept, that there is no individual, just one monolithic body. I have been taught from my earliest years that we are all individuals,

If in your view humanity is a single organism, how do you explain the strife that goes on in the world, all the atrocities that are committed in the name of one ideology or another (I do not exclude Christianity from this), the genocide or ethnic-cleansing that has happened at various times and in various places throughout our history?

Please do not take this as condemnation of your philosophy. I am truly curious. I have never met anyone who has held that view.

Lilith, I always look forward to your viewpoints.

 

There is risk in everything we do in life, from making breakfast to mowing the lawn, from crossing the street. If we all did a risk assessment for everything we do in life, we would not live.

 

Stopping DUI before they cause a crash, probably fatally, does make sense. But the rules of probable cause apply; the arresting officer must have had some indication the person is impaired, even if the only thing he sees is someone walking out of the bar.

 

You caught me while I was responding to the passenger thing. But you already saw that point.

 

I am not certain, but I think the Texas code contains a similar provision with regard to 'due care and attention'. I will try to verify this. But here you address my final point of my last post.

No, not a novel question. Just trying to promote awareness. This topic came up at our weekly staff meeting, which always begins with a 'safety moment'. Our safety department has no official policy with regards to cell phone use, but they highly recommend that they not be used while driving, even hands free. Otherwise it will be according to local and state laws that will be the determining factor.

 

I have known about the studies re the effect of passenger distraction being greater among younger or less experienced drivers. There have been proposals in the state legislature to the effect that younger drivers should not be allowed to drive with passengers unless one of them is an adult. We shouldn't have to do that, but I recognize the need.

 

As to hands-free use vs talking to a passenger, I too have heard the results you state, including the reasoning that if you have a passenger with you, they can see when the traffic conditions need the drivers full attention, but on the phone, they cannot. Here the responsibility lies with the driver to tell the other person that he needs to hang up and call back when it is safer, say after pulling into a parking lot. I have no compunction against doing that. Unfortunately, too few people will do that.

 

One situation that comes to mind where a strict ban on all phone usage is truly warranted is in a school zone, especially during drop off and pick up times. There are far too many little distractions to handle, and one more could be disastrous.

 

I do have the sense that we are steadily losing our liberties in the name of public safety, all because there is a decreasing sense of personal responsibility. There are many ways that a driver can be distracted that have the same potential of causing an accident (here I mean accident because we cannot control the distraction). It may seem an obvious thing to ban cell phone use while driving, and it may cause people, who would otherwise not do the responsible thing, to hang up. But what comes after that? Bit by bit, we lose our liberty, ceding to more and more governmental control. Not a big thing, not all at once, so why fuss over it?

 

Distracted driving is distracted driving. One law should cover it all. Just as we have laws that penalize tailgating, reckless lane changing, and running red lights. If there is any question as to what is reckless and what it not, let a jury decide. That is why we have trials; to try the evidence on an individual basis.

 

As for our friend in Arizona, you're welcome to visit Houston any time. You'll feel right at home.

Ya'll come back now. Y'hear?

Again, you are technically correct.

 

I suppose my attitude with regards to safety has been shaped by all the safety training I have had to receive, both in the military and especially with the engineering/construction company I work for. On my company ID badge we have the safety departments mission statement:

 

"We make NO compromise with respect to Morality, Ethics or Safety.

... if a design or work practice is perceived to be unsafe, we do not proceed until the issue is resolved."

 

Safety in our company does not stop at the construction site gate. It is a culture that is deeply embedded into each and every employee, whether they work in the field or in the home office, starting with a genuine concern from the president and owner of the company. And safety is not just for while on the job, but every where we go.

 

In the case of the reckless driver, that the most likely reason he has not had a crash is not because he is such a good driver, and not because he was just lucky. I would submit that his 'luck' was due more to the careful, defensive driving of the other motorists. Should our friendly neighborhood daredevil cause a fatality due to his reckless driving, that is called vehicular man-slaughter, with the car being defined as the weapon. I have served on a jury in just such a case. That was the most difficult case I have had to face.

 

This explanation is not meant to be bickering with you. I respect that you have a different viewpoint, and I value your feedback. It is just that this is what I have been taught, and what I live by.

I accept your definition as being more accurate, especially in the scenario you paint. Crossing a bridge covered in black ice, losing control of the vehicle and crashing into another one would fall into the accident category as well. I assume that the individual is taking reasonable care to prevent the accident, and not behaving recklessly.

 

As to reasonable behavior, how do you feel about someone who makes the decision to drive 30mph over the speed limit (I know, the rest of traffic is most likely traveling at 10mph over limit), while weaving through traffic and crossing four lanes at a time, while holding a cell phone to his ear? I see that as an "accident" looking for a place to happen.

I could not agree with you more. Nowadays it seems that people have become so obsessed by the new technology that surrounds them they feel insecure about being 'unplugged'. I know that this general statement does not apply to everyone, it just does seem that I see it more and more often.

From the topic of Why? Enrage Slith remarks that it seems most people don't take time to do a little introspective thinking. This triggered my reaction whenever I see someone not paying attention to their driving because they have their cell phone against their ear. It is even worse when they are texting.

 

Distracted driving has become more and more of a problem. It seems to me that common sense would dictate that you need to keep your focus on your driving, especially in high population cities like Houston, Chicago, New York. Apparently common sense isn't all that common these days.

 

Many legislatures from the city and county on up to the state level are trying to craft laws to prohibit that. I don't like them but I see the necessity of some sort of law that covers the incidence of crashes involving distracted driving.

 

My question is this: How far should these laws go?

1) Talking on the cell phone while driving, no hands free.

2) Talking on the cell phone while driving, using a blue tooth device.

3) Texting while driving.

4) Fiddling with your car radio, or A/C controls.

 

Personally, I think that

1) should apply only in the case of finding fault in a collision. Enforcing it at any other time should be based on individual circumstances, say a driver is weaving in his lane.

2) Using a blue tooth device with voice activation capability is to me no more distracting than talking to a passenger sitting next to you.

3) With regard to texting, I see no way that this can be safe, unless you are on open highways with little to no traffic, and even then that is still questionable.

4) I mention these because they also constitute a distraction. Should these be regulated as well? I think that these are similar to question 1; only with regard to a collision.

 

BTW, you may have noticed I didn't say accident. An accident I would term as a collision over which you have no control. Texting while driving is a choice.

Au contrair, mon ami,

I recognize them quite well, by the intensity of their pungency.