MintberryCrunch

It's still fun, that's why. I get to indulge my love of cities and civil planning and design and it's still the case that I can play this game for hours and feel like only five minutes have gone by. I started playing (and joined this forum) when I was only 14. I'm 20 now and I have less time for it, but I still come back to it (often in "bursts" where I'll play it every day for a couple weeks).

I don't know exactly. "Suburbanite" might describe me the best, but it's not all that I do. I'd describe my type as "One Region Fanatic". I've been working on a single region for years. I've written articles about the cities and towns and their history and when I play mostly what I do is watch these towns change and grow, or make subtle tweaks to them. I haven't started a brand new city in forever. I recently just divided one of my largest cities into "wards" and created a map that shows these wards. I also obsessively name every street.

Cool, thanks! Copying that line into Steam launch options worked perfectly.

I have the latest version of Windows 10. I think the problem is that I installed SC4 through Steam and that doesn't allow the SC4 Launcher to run. It's like it can only launch through Steam. The error that I get is that it just does nothing. I open the Launcher, click Launch and nothing happens. The game never starts up. The setting I want is the ability to run on 1 core. On my previous computer, this significantly reduced the number of crashes for me. Is there some other way I can enable this setting? I don't know much about command line stuff.

SC4 was working well on my old computer with the SC4 Launcher. Unfortunately, I recently built a new gaming PC and now I can't get the game to work with the Launcher anymore. The settings on the Launcher were the only way I prevented the game from crashing constantly. Now that I can't use it anymore, it crashes all the time. How can I install SC4 so that the Launcher will work?

Yeah I was glad to hear that didn't turn out to be what I (and many others) thought it was. Shame on Ryan Lochte and co though. Overall it was a pretty good games, and the "doom and gloom" predictions were not accurate. I'm glad for that of course.

Well, I was going to mention how well the Olympics were going so far (and that's still mostly true), but here we have some of what was expected: http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-oly-rio-2016-was-ryan-lochte-robbed-at-gunpoint-or-1471189256-htmlstory.html

Just for S &G: http://www.theonion.com/article/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl-2879 As for atheists discussing religion, it makes sense, considering that religion is all around them in society, most people are religious, and many people want the law of the land to reflect religious dogma. In many ways, atheists must be concerned with religion. That doesn't mean they need to spend so much time trying to convince others that their beliefs are true, but one can discuss it without doing so. Just because you believe there is no actual God, doesn't mean you can't discuss it. Atheists can recognize that God is very real as a concept, and that of course can be discussed. Also, some people simply enjoy discussing the possibility (or not) of God's existence. Agnostics especially may find arguments on both sides interesting and worth considering. I also think some comparisons between atheism and religion are valid. You have a belief, maybe it came to you after reflection and research, that belief has improved your life, you want to share it with others so that they can "see the light" as you do. That can apply to theists and atheists alike. One could turn the question around on theists too: if you're so confident in your beliefs, why do you spend so much time attacking atheist beliefs and trying to convince people that evolution is false? Why apologetics? Surely if your beliefs are 100% correct, no amount of "science" will ever disprove them (I also do not believe religion and science are incompatible, despite what people on both sides sometimes say, but this is for the sake of example). I'm just saying that people discussing "the other side"'s beliefs (even in relation to their own) are not necessarily guilty of any hypocrisy or doubt. And FWIW, I'm a "universalist" or whatever you want to call it. I believe in God and believe that all religions are an attempt at accessing God, that there is no "one true religion", that they all have some spiritual truth to them.

142,857 This number appears in the reciprocal of 7. 1/7 = 0.142857142857... for eternity. 14, 28, 56 are 7 multiplied by the powers of two. Here's what's interesting about this number: 142857 x 2 = 285,714 142857 x 3 = 428,571 142857 x 4 = 571,428 142857 x 5 = 714,285 142857 x 6 = 857,142 The first six multiples of 142857 are all permutations of the digits 142857. Then of course we have: 142857 x 7 = 999,999 142857 + 857142 = 999,999

And another: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/world/europe/syrian-refugee-arrested-in-germany-after-fatal-machete-attack.html

Except ISIS would rather bomb Afghanistan, an already impoverished and deeply troubled nation of Muslims. ISIS likes to act like they have this coherent ideology, but they're really all over the place. They kill more Muslims than any other type of people. They variously support lone wolf attacks that may have had nothing to do with them (look at the way they wanted to support the Orlando shooter, but couldn't when it turned out he might've been gay).

Okay, OcramsRzr has gone off the deep end -_- OT: Why are there always reports of multiple gunmen at first and then it turns out there was only one? Do people just have a hard time imagining that one person can inflict that much damage? Also, this shooter appears to have been mentally disturbed (not surprising) and was obsessed with mass shootings. It seems to have had nothing to do with extremism. Although I guess we'll find out more.

Well, most religions teach that only the members of that religion will be the ones in heaven. According to South Park, Mormons are the only people allowed in heaven Kind of reminds me of an idea a drunken Barney Gumble suggested on The Simpsons: Barney: All I'm saying is that when we die, there'll be a planet for the French, a planet for the Chinese...and we'll all be a lot happier! Lisa: Mr. Gumble, you're upsetting me. Barney: No I'm not!