Smersh

Citation needed.

The in-game chart actually looks different than the one on the site.

What it looks like, in game, is that all four of the rare boosts are on a line, and from the center, a branch comes out, leading to the two very rares. Combining that with the information from the site you linked, where the Very Rare boosts have the line [Ability Cost: Any 2 Rare], leads me to believe that...

If you want the Cardiac Core Paragon, you would need to craft, say, a Cardiac Partial Core Revamp and a Cardiac Total Radial Revamp.

It look like you could follow one line, getting the two rares on that line, and switch over to the other side for the very rare.

Mind you, that's just interpretation.

Though I do have to wonder if 'any two rare' means that I could, say, get two rare Cardiac boosts, and craft them into a very rare Spiritual boost.

Again, this is only my interpretation of the information available to me.

I... actually disagree.

After I unlocked the slot, I did one tip mission, and then did the arc again with my wife, so she could unlock her slot.

We run at +2x6, but by the end of the evening, I had four Incarnate shards and a Grai Matter in my inventory (had some leftover Vanguard merits.)

I think that, even solo, it shouldn't be all that onerous.

You'll want to find a real dealer that does repairs on the premises.

Regular servicing can really extend the life of a machine.

Disclosure on my part: my mother works for Babylock at the corporate level. But they are fine machines.

I prefer to look at ideas, and believe that your characterization of me is not only wrong, but uncalled for in civil discourse.

Yes, TheBruteSquad's premise was also wrong, as I feel has been demonstrated in our discourse. That does not make your facts right, nor does it make your argument correct.

You laid out two cases: one, the argument that I have been making, that atrocity is a matter of definition with regards to power, and the other, that it is all subjective. You have not presented any evidence that it is subjective, and I have supported my position that it is a matter of definition. So, therefore, in one of these cases, your argument was wrong, and that is the case that is supported and has valid, unrebutted points.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, you really do have to use language precisely and define the terms of your argument well. (Incidentally, that is why I have not addressed the main topic - what qualifies as a 'true' artificial intelligence? What is the test being used?)

I am certainly not saying that atrocity is one person killing another. That is clearly not what I am implying, either.

It is a very nebulous thing: It can be something as little as having physical size on your side, or something as big as having guns or bombs.

But, if you have a gun and the will to use it, and I am just going about my day to day business, guess what? In that situation, you have the power. Does it matter that I am a corporate CEO with a net worth of millions and huge amounts of political influence due to campaign contributions, and that you are unemployed and about to be foreclosed upon because my corporate policies cost you your job? No. In general, the CEO has more power and privilege than the unemployed person living in poverty. But when the unemployed person shows up with a weapon and the intention to use it against that CEO, guess what? The power dynamic is hugely different in that situation.

Is every murder an atrocity? No. The situation above is murder, but not necessarily an atrocity. An atrocity is a premeditated act, and generally not discriminating about the victims individually. In the three legitimate examples you provided, the perpetrators intended to kill people. The intended targets were picked because of their religion, their nationality, or the fact that they went to the wrong school on the wrong day. Those are certainly atrocities. They did not target an individual, but a type of person. If our unemployed criminal chose to shoot up the office, that would be an atrocity.

I said 'not every murder is an atrocity' in my first post on the subject. Try not to make my arguments be the arguments you want them to be, but the arguments I make.

But, Dur, they all were in the power position when they committed the atrocities. By definition, an atrocity is committed by someone in the power position. I've shown that to be the case in the three legitimate examples you provided.

There is no wiggle room here; the perpetrator is in the position of power at the moment of the crime. The motivation might be a perception of weakness and a desire to right that imbalance by violence. I will not dispute that.

I'm not opening the can of worms here. You issued the challenge, and it is not my fault you made statements that are indefensible. The only way you can defend it is to use a special Durraken definition of atrocity, and that's not the way to win this discussion.

a) Citation needed.

b) You talk about atrocities being committed from positions of powerlessness? Here's a fact for you: You have to look at the power dichotomy in the specific case you speak about. Coming to school with guns? They were in the position of power there, in that specific instant. Guns vs. no guns.

c) Germany had been in a weak position, but by the time they were blitzkreiging across Europe, they had built themselves a fantastic amount of military strength. That would be why they took out Poland, Belgium and France so quickly. Germany was not in a position of weakness when they began the aggression. And, to get the rest of your imprecisely framed argument, the Holocaust utilized the power of the state apparatus to imprison and kill the marginal groups who were targeted - again, atrocity from a position of strength relative to the victim.

d) You want to talk about your basic premise? Your basic premise is flawed. The hijackers aboard the planes were in a position of strength vis a vis the other passengers, because they had boxcutters and no fear of injury or death, as well as complete and utter surprise. Likewise, any suicide bomber who blows up a crowd is coming from a stronger position relative to their victims. Politically and economically, their ideology/religion/country may be in a weaker position, but the individual atrocities are committed from a stronger position.

Now, not every killing is an atrocity, but by definition, atrocities are committed by someone who is in a stronger position at the moment that it occurs.

Hypothetical, not worthy of consideration or as an argument.

Factually untrue - you're rolling with a media narrative. The Columbine shooters were mentally ill.

You completely fail to address the idea of German nationalism and Hitler's economic policies as reasons for his ascent to power, which enabled him to carry out his anti-Semitic policies. Your understanding of interwar Germany is lacking. Also, Godwin.

Likewise, your understanding of Middle Eastern politics is quite lacking. The amount of wrong is far too much to go into detail in this post, and is far beyond the scope of this forum; I'll just tell you to go read Ghost Wars as a start, and then do some actual reading on Wahabism and the history of Israel. Protip: The British created an untenable situation in the Middle East, back in the 1920s, and it created problems that still resonate today.

I'm not addressing your premise about atrocities, I'm only addressing your 'facts.' Care to recant or say something you likely don't want to?

And reading Twilight means that it's just a fun romance book? It's not teaching impressionable girls poor lessons about love and relationships?

I'm certainly not saying that my daughter will never, ever get to watch anything with those sorts of messages. Snow White is an amazing piece of animation, and has fun songs to boot. Sleeping Beauty has a great dragon, et cetera. But, I have to counterbalance it with lessons about why the protagonists of those stories fail as role models - good things don't just come to you because you're pretty, you have to work for them, you can be a success on your own without passively waiting for a prince/fairy godmother, and so on.

Mulan is not bad, because she sees a problem and decides to go out and do something about it because it is the right thing to do. That's a good lesson that I can just reinforce, rather than critique. I'm looking forward to watching Macross with her, because the female lead is a successful and competent military officer... before we even meet her!

Do I have a problem with princesses? Yeah, I do. But it's not a problem specifically with princesses, but with gendered media in general and the societal imposition of sex roles. I'm serious, go look at the difference between boy toys and girl toys in a toy store. Or, you can read things like this story to get an inkling of why I have a problem with this.

Let the princess genre die.

So... recruitment by an unknown hero?

*smirk*