MonoAccipiter

"textures/clutter/museum/tracklighting01.dds" was causing issues for me.

Yes, you can use that. When I did some of the tracklights had some texture corruption issues, but I'm unsure whether that was because of the long download or the mod in itself.

I'm just making an educated guess here, but all the FNV DLCs (except GRA & Courier's Stash, but neither of those distribute the gear on their own) are extensions in new worldspaces, and don't touch any vanilla assets, so there shouldn't really be any reason to tag them.

Of course I can.

That sounds great, darkside! I had totally forgotten how much i detested veteran rangers with white pearl necklaces. @Van555: You could probably go ahead and try looking at it before getting a response, but if you'd feel inclined to share it, which I encourage, contacting the author would probably be wise.

Disable the rest of the hand nifs in the same folder and your hands should match up again.

Go into Robert's Body in MO's left pane and hide the lefthandpipboyglove.nif and lefthandpipboyglove1st.nif in the meshes/characters/_male folder and see if that makes the glove work.

That seems odd. I can look into it tomorrow, currently working on my (continued development of ACES') casino overhaul.

Boone is very loyal to the NCR (though mostly the men and women in the ranks, not necessarily the command structure) and some of his triggers (basically events that need to happen in a certain way to unlock the companion quest) reflect that. Veronica's triggers are not so much related to your decisions as it is to her hearing certain (dialogue) lines when in the company of the players. They're both pretty good in their own way IMO, and you can probably find another companion (written by Chris Avellone) if you take a look around the Mojave Outpost.

Quoting etymology is very interesting, but isn't even remotely close to being relevant when defining the word. For example in my language there is a word - ekvipasje - which means horse carriage, but the etymological origins of the word comes from the word ekvipere, meaning equipping something with clothing which comes from the french word equiper, meaning equip. This in turn either comes from Norse skipa, meaning to fix or prepare something, which comes from skip, meaning (in both Norse and Norwegian) ship; or from Old English scipian, meaning to sail. I have tons of more examples of this, as I'm more than averagely interested in etymology and actually own a massive etymological dictionary in my language, but pretending that their origins defines the words would just be ludicrous. I should point out that this is a pretty common linguistic misconception known as an etymological fallacy. Huxley did not try to change anything. He coined the term, and, as I have demonstrated, terminology is more often understood from their contextual use than their etymological origins. I didn't try to say the idea he came up with was a new one - I even pointed out that there were earlier philosophers discussing the same ideas - but when discussing the term it is natural to either discuss what it was originally intended to describe, or what it has more commonly been used to describe recently, both which point to the same thing. Whether or not Carl Sagan thinks it's logical to hold another view, or whether or not we think it is, frankly doesn't really matter. The agnostic position is to naturally assume that certain metaphysical or religious claims are either unknown or inherently unknown. There are people who believe that one can know that God exists, just like there are people, like Richard Dawkins, that believe "permanent agnosticism ... (to be) ... "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice".". Penn Jillette sounds like a holder of said belief, though I have no knowledge of who he is. I prefer presenting my arguments without the weight of who presented them in any case. Where do you prove this? It seems like you're beginning your argument with your conclusion (circulus in demonstrando). You hold that they do not know, but you overrate the value of your view when discussing it from a purely logical point of view. I agree that I don't think anyone holds the answer to the question of God's existence, but that only defines me as an agnostic, not anyone else. I wrote several long posts about how I feel this sort of disrespectful and ignorant attitude towards the field of philosophy makes me profoundly sad, and doesn't do either field any favors, so I don't really feel the need to revisit it. If you want my opinion on the matter, read my exchange with Ayien. I feel we reached an understanding. EDIT: Added part about it being an etymological fallacy.

How does the bashed patch stop you from merging it? Presuming that you have put the bashed patch into its own folder in MO's left pane, you can just disable it while doing the merge if it gives you issued (though I don't see how it would).

Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. Agnosticism is not a "religion", no, but it is a doctrine nonetheless. It was coined by Huxley and advocated for by several philosophers pre-dating the term, and is most commonly described as neither believing or disbelieving in God. Huxley said the following: "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." and "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.". Know that this man was a philosopher however, and when he says it is not a creed, but a method he says so to implicate the simplicity and naturality of the approach. In later years most philosophers have defined it as a doctrine, such as Bertrand Russel who said the following: Carl Sagan himself said the following about atheism: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.", clearly indicating that he believe it not to be agnostic. There are people who would define themselves as agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists, but most theists or atheists are not agnostics per say.

I'm an agnostic too. Was for a period of time an atheist, but dealing with depression as well as the death of an extremely close family member gave me a deeper appreciation for the place religion fills for many people, and made me doubt some of my ideas about life. For a time I was desperate to feel that this person wasn't gone, as the death had been very sudden and unjust, and read a large amount of philosophy and theology about proofs for God's existence (the Christian God, as said family member was a Christian). Sadly I did not find them to prove anything, except maybe the possibility for a higher being to exist, and as such remain in doubt about the whole affair.

Not surprising given that THC affects the cannabinoid receptors in the brain which in part regulate mood. There's usually a difference to the quality of output as well though, at least when it comes to writing.

We're not entirely on the same page when talking about human observation, and honestly this might be on me not using precise enough wording. What I mean by the human ability (a word I now understand can invoke the idea of capacity, or what we can and cannot, scientifically speaking, observe) to observe is more along the nature of human observation as a whole, and the properties thereof. Hence when I say that it's not necessarily reliable, I mean to suggest that there could be temporal (i.e. pertaining to the "real" world in a similar fashion to what we do) phenomenons that are inertly beyond our ability to observe. This could mean that we simply hasn't developed the tools to see them, as you have suggested, but it doesn't exclude the other possibility. Again, I don't know of a much better example than the one SRB offered earlier with the 3D and 4D beings, so I'll just point to that. Very interesting topic. I don't actually get the opportunity to discuss philosophy all that often. :: I do agree that drinking helps stimulate creativity. I find it much easier to write poetry when I'm drunk, but that might just be my anxiety loosening its grip.

All it takes is weirdos like me being annoyed with way too many things.

It should scan for bodies and make them flop so they don't go all disformed (all dead Brahmins I encountered before using it looked like they had imploded). You could try tweaking the scanner value, but I'm guessing this mostly happens in interiors? The Nightkin are notoriously overexposed to that bug. :O_o:

I think Spock meant "younger than us" not as having been around for a shorter span of time, but rather having existed before we came into existence (by we I assumed he meant the human race). I'm still not sure, but are you talking about looking back at life from a transcendental state? In that case I ask you this - If you forgot everything how would you remember that you forgot? The only reason something feels like there's a blank is because you have events assorted to a time structure, and there's something missing in between them. If you lose all sense of memory, I'd reckon you would also lose all sense of time. It could still be observable, even temporal, given that your idea of everything being measurable is clearly a case of inductive reasoning. By this I mean that you have observed an effect and induced an argument to support the data, which means your conclusion (i.e. everything temporal is also measurable) is probable, but not solid. The problem is that you're arguing from the presumption that the human ability to observe is reliable, something could be affecting us though we are generally oblivious to its temporal qualities. EssArrBee made a perfectly fine example about it earlier using the material dimensions. I don't agree that philosophy gets easier the more intoxicated you are. It is a complicated field of study with an elaborate set of rules and guidelines, which like any science, the thing I've arguing that it is more than equal to, requires attention and comprehension to properly be divulged.

That's a non sequitur. Just because a measurable phenomenon exists, does not mean an existing phenomenon is measurable. Well for there to be a discussion about it's existence there has to be the possibility of an argument for its existence. Your kind of using your conclusion from the previous sentence to prove your point here, so it doesn't really follow. Sounds like a scientists approach to a philosophical subject. Why do you have to see the effect of an idea for it to be real. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. Though technically incorrect about the "I" part, it's more like something is doubting, therefore something is thinking, therefore something is, it serves well enough to demonstrate that you can determine the existence of this something without needing the crutch that is assumed reality to support it. Not entirely sure what you mean by this, Spock, as it's unclear whether you mean die and forget as something you do in life, where Wittgenstein would put it best with "Death is not an event in life", or whether you mean die and forget as in when we die we somehow continue to exists in a fashion, but without the memory of who we were. You don't forget (talking about the first case here) in a consistent fashion though, otherwise your personality would be very strangely impacted. The human sense of time is also heavily influence by measurements, routing, age and similar cases, hence you'd need to do a whole lot of forgetting for it to feel like the time disappeared.

This is very true. I agree with pretty much all of it. Eh, hate to say it, but just because that is the most commonly accepted definition, does not mean it's correct. It's kind of a petitio principii fallacy (otherwise known as begging the question; I only use the Latin term because it's one of the most misunderstood phrases in the English language) as your argument is based on a proof (actual truth isn't subjective) which also requires proof. There's also the fact that it's a false dichotomy because the fact that it's not the first option does not equate to meaning it's the second option. My initial reason for disagreeing with your conclusion can be found in my last post. The reason I took no interest in your usage of real truth in the first thing I quoted is because it simply doesn't matter. In that case, the generally applicable truth (i.e. something a larger audience can simultaneously view and understand in the same fashion) and actual objective truth serves the exacts same purpose. Whether it exists or not becomes irrelevant. When you move onto a more meta-scientific (here meaning beyond scientific) subject, it requires an entirely different approach however, and this is where philosophy becomes important. Try telling this page that truth can be easily defined with a single sentence, and you'll see what I mean. Maybe haunting requires a really arduous safety course. ::

This is why I quietly backed out the conversation a few pages back, as I simply had no interest in discussing what law X said about case Y, since I have absolutely no knowledge about the subject.

Go into Ragdolls MCM menu and tick the scanner option.

Sign me up as a writer. I'm allowed to dream, right? @GrantSP: Love the Witcher, but is it really as moddable? I'm asking as I haven't checked up the toolkit myself. It also doesn't simulate physics for many objects at all, being more of a static world with (sometimes) animated containers. That's if I recall correctly though, haven't played it for a while. One thing I never really like with the Witcher was how everything "felt" when moving, though that might have to do with the forced third-person perspective.

@Aiyen: Meta in philosophical terms has a very different meaning than pseudo, so for this subject matter the distinction is important. When I used healing as an example I was referring to the basis of the oft-presented truth of that ability, not whether it had any truth to it, as I haven't really given that matter much thought, seeing as I've never been in contact with it, and therefore consider myself a terrible judge. I simply wished to point out that there's a vast chasm in between the backing of a philosophical argument, and the backing of any given statement about an unmeasured article. Just because neither statement has the traditional scientific approach to proof, does not mean they are the same. The entire field of metaphysics, for example, simply want to arrive at conclusions about reality that aren't contingent on the state of the human observer. There's still an ocean of rules and history to follow, just like in the field of physics, though these have been arrived at and subsequently (if necessary) debased by the use of plausible exterior (meta) logic. In fact, with how far the field of quantum physics have developed, several physicists have been touching upon this very field, though from a different angle. The sometimes sad effect of this is when people like Stephen Hawking declares "Philosophy is dead." and "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.", only to follow it up by making what would to any practitioner of philosophy be a rather elementary mistake. Namely proposing a theory about the Universe creating itself from nothing through the same law of gravity he just finished postulated came into existence after the Singularity. @Z: First off, "I just admit my own ignorance and insignificance :P". This, I think, has always been the more natural thing for me to believe too. I'm less worried about what is actually true than you though, as I tend to view the world as being seen through a lense either way, hence I see no reason to exclude any properties that doesn't seem to fit the current lens unless those things can be explained on a particular (i.e. relating to the particular cases) basis. Nietzsche once postulated that nature (i.e. anything relating to the absolute state of things) is infinite, and that any understanding of it would be limited by language (e.g. the language of our minds - anything seeking to describe something really), and while the premise of that statement is fairly non-verifiable, the implication of it is still rather interesting, and something science as a whole has moved towards. My previous "bad guy", Mr Hawking, is actually rather good at making a point of this, once stating "I don’t demand that a theory corresponds to reality, because I don't know what it is.". In the end you seem to have gotten the essence of the matter right, in any case, with "Exploring/hypothesizing/testing possibilities seems essentially objective and constructive, but jumping to conclusions with magical thinking is purely subjective.", which I wholeheartedly agree with. Might want to tone down on throwing around the absolutes (e.g. "are the stuff of dreams") when following up on a statement about realizing your own limitations though.

KoToR 2, the game that made me fall in love with the RPG genre. Oh those were the days when my disc wasn't too scratched to be read by the Xbox. EDIT: Empire at War actually has a pretty good modding community, including an Old Republic era mod which I really enjoyed. :)