Steampunk

Then we are arguing about two completely different things. I never said people couldn't say something didn't exist. I said they could not prove that claim. For most people, that's not an issue. Yes. I believe that perpetual motion/free energy/over-unity can be definitively stated to be false because there is mathematical proof that the concept is not possible and empirical observation completely supports that. This is the only case that comes to mind where a person can definitively say that "free energy" has never existed, does not exist, and never will. The way our universe works simply doesn't allow for it. That's quite different from claiming God cannot exist. So far, there is no proof of that. There have been hoaxes, frauds, and exploitation, but that only proves those particular cases were false. It may be irrational, and logic may dictate he doesn't exist, but there is no actual evidence. How is that different from your examples? Nobody is arguing that those creatures are real. We all agree they are mythical, so we don't really need any evidence there. Conversely, there is heated debate over whether God exists. In that context, evidence is required to prove conclusively his existence or lack thereof. Atheists cannot know definitively God is fake any more than Christians can know definitively he is real. Both sides are arguing from belief (no matter how rational that belief may be), but neither has any proof to support their argument. If we could all agree God was real/fake, that wouldn't matter. Since it's clear we don't agree, it's a matter of belief vs. belief.

That's just a matter of semantics. I say, "not enough evidence supports their existence, so I don't believe the are real" and you say "they aren't real." They are the same position and opinion. You are correct: those things are mythological, and we don't need an in-depth investigation to prove that. I was trying to explain the logic behind "You can't prove a negative" using your examples. Instead of me trying to explain it, it's probably best I let Randi speak for himself: I consider things false until proven true unless it's a reasonable assumption that isn't going to happen. Myths and fantasy, things like that. I do give people their proverbial day in court if they say they have found evidence that contradicts what I already know/think about something though.

Were I to prove it is impossible for unicorns, dragons, and Bogeymen to exist, I'd have to be omniscient and know what earth-shattering discoveries people would about them in the future. Unfortunately, that is beyond my capabilities. Since I cannot predict what new evidence may arise supporting the existence of these creatures in the future, I cannot say for certain they don't exist. I can only say that there isn't enough proof available right now to convince me they are real. That's not saying they aren't real, as we haven't proven that. It's only saying that there's nothing to suggest they are real and I have no reason to believe in them as of now. That is not what the expression means. By "negative," he means you cannot prove that something does not exist or that something is not possible. The example he gives is proving Santa's reindeer cannot fly. You can gather a group of reindeer, take them to the top of a tall building, and push them off to see if they fly. If none of them do, it does not prove that reindeer cannot fly. It only proves that, under certain atmospheric conditions, at a certain time of day, with a certain wind speed blowing from a certain direction, etc, the reindeer they tested either could not fly, or chose not to. That's what the expression is talking about: you cannot prove definitely that something is impossible. You can only prove that whatever you expected to happen did not occur under the testing conditions at the time.

As James Randi says, you cannot prove a negative. That is probably my biggest gripe with gung-ho atheists: they claim to know for certain that God does not exist, even though there really is no way that can be proven. In that respect, they aren't much different from Christians who claim that God does exist. Just proves what I've believed for a long time: the radical-to-moderate continuum is not a straight line, but a horseshoe. The more radical you are, the more alike the radicals of the opposing position you become. Personally, I have no issues with religious people. Since the OP is looking for arguments against religion, here are a few that stand out to me. Religion is a broad term that includes radically different traditions. Animism, Buddhism, Druidism, Wicca[nism?], Scientology (everyone's favorite) and the Egyptian, Greco-Roman, and Norse polytheistic myths could be considered religions. Let's also not forget Pastafarianism [®Amen]. In this case, though, we seem to be discussing the Abrahamic faiths specifically. There is of course the infamous Problem of Evil, which the Greek skeptics summed up pretty well: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? He is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Basically, if God is...God, why does evil exist? There are also inconsistencies in Abrahamic beliefs, such as the role of Satan (for example). In Judaism, Satan is not evil per se. Rather, he is an agent of God who tempts people to sin, then tells God whether they gave in to temptation or not. In Christianity, Satan actually has several different incarnations, though the best known (and most widely accepted) version is that he was an angel who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Not sure how he went from being God's narc to the root of all evil, but it is a very interesting career change. There is also the whole Book of Genesis fiasco. Many Christians consider that to be the true origin story of mankind, even though historic record suggests it was written for political reasons and even the Jews did not consider the story of Adam and Eve to be an actual explanation of where man came from. St. Augustine also didn't consider it an actual origin story. Ironic considering Christians in the United States are fighting tooth and nail to have it taught alongside (and even in place of in some areas) evolution because they genuinely believe it is factual.

That's how our minds work, put simply. We tend to work our way from the vague and general down to the finer details. Look at how education is structured: you're introduced to something, you get a foundation of knowledge, then you work your way up to more specialized info. Most people don't need an expertise outside of their jobs and don't care to spend time becoming an expert in things outside of their personal interest. Thus, their knowledge beyond those two cases is quite shallow and general. In everyday life, that works just fine and most people speak in general terms unless its something they know a lot about. Even then, if you're talking to someone who doesn't understand the subject as well as you, you probably wouldn't inundate them with details and technicalities unless they ask for it or are debating with you. Also, the more in depth you go, the more you're going to ramble. As Shakespeare once said: brevity is the soul of wit.

My hometown is famous for assholes. It produces quite a few and in a wide range of flavors.

Someone told me they could feel the explosion 15 miles away. That's a pretty solid blast, for sure. Good thing it wasn't in Waco proper, or it could have been a lot uglier.

You are correct that they were not housing massive reserves for the military. The point I am attempting to make, however, is that Truman himself did not choose these targets. They were chosen by Gen. Leslie Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan project and presumably knew where the bombs could be most effective bearing in mind that an invasion was still planned. So the question in my mind at this point is, did Truman know that HIroshima and Nagasaki were largely populated by civilians and were of debatable value to the Japanese military? The evidence I've found suggests that Truman was largely unaware of the details of the two cities: they were merely explained to him as having military significance. This tells me he wasn't aware that he would be killing mostly civilians before the bombs were used, and makes it hard for me to believe he was a war criminal who acted with a clear desire to murder innocent people. Here is his diary entry 07/25/1945: "He (Sec. of War Mr. Stimson) and I are in accord. the target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance." Truman's diary 07/25/1945: "The weapon is to be used against between now and August 10th. I have told the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target, not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, murderers, and fanatics, we cannot" From Henry Wallace's diary 08/10/1945, after Truman received reports and photographs of the effects of the bombs: "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." We cannot say definitively, but I do believe the military figures in the Japanese government would have insisted upon such extreme measures. Those leaders showed they would prefer Japan's destruction over a surrender of any kind. The Potsdam Declaration does not mention the Emperor at all, but it does state that Japan would be free to create its own government (which could have presumably kept the Emperor). Moreover, Truman stated that Japan could keep the Emperor under conditions the Allies would set, so you still haven't proven Japan was willing to surrender to the Allies. They asked for neither an unconditional surrender nor the Emperor's removal, and Japan still resisted. This statement gives me the impression you are not aware of Japan's internal situation with regards to surrender. That statement also assumes it was the stance of a united government, which is incorrect. Disagreement within Japan's cabinet was actually the reason why Japan remained at war even after both bombs were used. You are correct that Japanese officials sent messages to the USSR communicating terms Japan would find acceptable for surrender however, they were vague and inconsistent with their requests. Also, even if the Allies agreed to those terms, those officials had no means of guaranteeing Japan would honor its promise to cease hostilities. Nagasaki was bombed August 9, 1945. The Japanese cabinet met on the 13th to discuss surrendering. They needed a unanimous vote, but the War Minister, the Army's Chief of Staff, and the Navy's Chief of Staff opposed. The military refused even after two atomic bombs fell on their own soil. Since there wasn't a unanimous vote, Japan refused to surrender. The ministers who did want the war to end realized the military planned to use political gridlock to prevent Japan from giving up and the atomic bombs showed them they couldn't wait any longer, so they broke tradition and asked the Emperor to tell the military to stand down. Only after that did the military vote in favor of surrender. As pointed out, all of this happened after the bombs were used. I fail to see how anything I just described suggests Japan was prepared to end the war long before the bombs became a factor. There were definitely people within Japan's government who were willing to yield to the Allies, but that is not the same thing as Japan's entire government being willing to do so. We have to differentiate between what many people wanted to do and what decisions were actually made, which your statement doesn't seem to take into consideration. With that in mind, I can't help but wonder if Japan would have surrendered even if the Allies accepted any of those proposals (especially since the terms of the Atlantic Charter were similar to Potsdam, and they indicated they'd accept terms based on the charter but refused Potsdam). Considering two atomic bombs did not sway the military, I don't believe a peace agreement proposed by pacifists in the Japanese government would have done so either. The military crowd was actively persecuting any pacifist sentiment within the citizenry, and had the political weight to make life uncomfortable for any outspoken pacifists within the cabinet. I'm not even sure a guarantee to leave the Emperor in power would have done it. If the US decided to drop a third bomb, it could just as easily have landed in the Emperor's lap. While that is pure speculation, it was the reason cabinet ministers asked him to intervene: they feared any future bombs the US might drop could kill him. At least there was a chance (no matter how small) he would remain Emperor under the Potsdam Declaration. The possible adverse health effects of an atomic bomb on the Emperor did not seem to concern the military, which makes me wonder if the threat of losing the position of Emperor was merely justification for their opposing a surrender for other reasons. Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo was one of the biggest advocates of peaceful settlement with Allies, and he was the one who sent those proposals. That's good, as it opened up diplomatic opportunities and showed that not everyone in Japan's government was willing to "burn the village in order to save it." He was a major supporter of the Potsdam Declaration and considered it the best terms for surrender Japan could hope to get. He and many others were eager for the conflict to end. They were not the problem. The problem was the military people in the cabinet who were not considering surrender in the first place. Now, we do know Truman was aware of these messages. The question is, did he deliberately ignore them because he was chomping at the bit to kill Japanese people? I don't believe so. I believe Truman genuinely felt the atomic bombs were the only real option: not because he was a mass murderer, but because he didn't have faith in his diplomatic options. I cannot say for sure, but that's the way it looks to me based on the facts I've seen. I do feel he had good reason to think Japan wasn't genuinely interested in peace talks. He wasn't a bad person, he had thrust upon him a difficult situation and an even more difficult decision. In hindsight, we know now that Togo was serious. That's beneficial for making decisions like this in the future. As for whether or not Truman should be condemned for that, I think, given what he had seen from, knew of, and experienced with Japan, his decision was not malicious in nature beyond the degree one would expect in warfare. With that in mind, I still don't believe he should be considered war criminal. I'm always willing to be shown though. Still, I think I've made my case as effectively as I can make it. If I find any new information related to this, I'll add it. Until then, I need to get some sleep. I'll just add this one last thing that Harry Truman said to David Lilienthal (Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission) in private, July 1948. After he came to fully understand what the atomic bombs were and what they did, he made one of the truest statements I have ever heard about the atomic bomb: "I don't think we ought to use this thing unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that...that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn't a military weapon. It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses."

I'm curious what your assertion they were not of dire need is based on. Bear in mind that the Allies were still expecting to invade Japan even after dropping the bombs, and those two cities were not targeted or really affected by aerial bombardment. I'm interested to hear why Allied commander didn't see any need to eliminate one intact military stronghold housing the Japanese 2nd & 5th armies and the 224th mobile division and one intact ordinance, steel, and ship production center was not of dire need in preparation for a mainland invasion after the second bombing. If you are going to suggest they were prepared to surrender, my last point deals with that. If that is the case, it will be incredibly ironic. MacArthur tried very hard to give himself the authority to the use of atomic weapons despite Truman's adamant refusal to approve them during the Korean War. Originally, they were intended to put out fires and render medical aid. By April 1945, however they were reorganized into a civilian militia intended for combat purposes. You can find images of schoolgirls in the VFC receiving rifle training, and there are many testimonials of them being instructed on how to kill enemy soldiers. It doesn't make sense for Japan to take these measures, then not call upon this militia to defend the homeland, and some were used against the Soviets in the Manchuria Campaign, which shows me that Japan was willing to send civilians to the front lines. It doesn't make sense use them in Manchuria, but not use them to defend Japan itself. Fortunately, we'll never know what their in Operation Downfall would have been as the invasion never happened. The Potsdam Declaration did not call for unconditional surrender. I believed that as well until I actually looked at what it said. This is the declaration so you can read it for yourself: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm Japan may have referred to it as such to encourage resistance against the Allies, but you can clearly see it is not unconditional. It makes several guarantees to protect Japan from exploitation or excessive retribution. You can also see a very clear threat of complete destruction if they did not respond, which also makes it clear that Truman gave them fair warning he would be taking extreme measures to end the war if they refused. Japan did not respond to this declaration, and I can't say if they believed Truman's threat or not. I'm sure they did after Hiroshima, but they continued very determined resistance against the Soviets in Manchuria despite clear evidence the US had the means to carry out its promise. That is not the conduct of a country prepared to surrender. As the link correctly mentions, Japan was largely controlled by hawkish military leaders. A look at Japan's strategic behavior in the Pacific paints a very clear picture of their views on surrender and yielding. For specific examples, look at the figures and accounts of Iwo Jima & Okinawa (Volcaco/Ryukyu Campaign), Kohime & Imphal (Burma Campaign), and the Manchurian Strategic Offensive. I am not saying the atomic bombs are something to celebrate, but I do feel they were the lesser of two evils. The alternative would have resulted in astronomical deaths for all parties, not just the US. I'm also not convinced Japan was prepared to surrender. What official documents or cabinet meeting transcripts suggest this, despite continued military resistance?

I don't believe Harry Truman was a war criminal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen by US military leaders because of their military importance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army, which was responsible for defending the southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was chosen because it was an industrial center, important for building ships, ordinance, and producing steel. This shows the intent was to eliminate Japan's ability to repel the invasion forces involved in Operation Downfall. Even after dropping two bombs, the Allies feared they would still have to invade Japan proper. I think that says a lot for how confident Truman and his military advisers were that Japan was ready to surrender. Clearly, they believed the country could fold at any moment if they dropped two atomic bombs on it and still believe an invasion force twice the size of the one at Normandy would still be necessary. As for military commanders staying the bombs weren't needed, I'd like to see some dates attached to those statements. It's one thing for them to tell Truman the bombs were excessive before he gave the order to use them. It's a whole different ball of wax if these statements popped up after the decision became unpopular, which is what I feel happened. I can either believe Truman was so determined to see the world burn that he ordered the bombs dropped despite every general and admiral he had telling him not to do it or, those people said jack shit about using the bombs before they were dropped but became outspoken opponents of atomic weapons after public outrage set in. So, if you have a date that shows these men allegedly telling Truman the bombs weren't needed before they were used, I'd appreciate it. If not, that's not really proving he was a war criminal, because the man can't factor those statements in to his decision after the fact. If he used the bombs despite the advice of his generals, that's a different story. As many people stated, Operation Downfall would have been far bloodier than the bombs themselves, but I'm not sure if the anti-bomb crowd fully appreciates the scale we're talking about. The Japanese military proper was pretty whipped, but the Volunteer Fighting Corps that Japan had formed using civilians was enormous. All civilians, ages 17-60, male and female, were required to serve in this militia. When all was said and done, the VFC contained about 28 million people the Japanese government considered "combat capable." Think about that for a moment. 28 million civilians fighting what could have been the largest maritime invasion force in history. The two atomic bombs killed 200,000 people. There's no way Operation Downfall would have killed fewer civilians, as they would be making up the vast majority of Japan's defensive forces and repelling a massive, aggressive, well coordinated invasion with naval bombardment, air support, and trained, experienced, and conditioned military personnel. As reprehensible as innocent deaths from the bombing is, I find it equally if not more so reprehensible that Japan was actually going to send its civilians to their deaths. Aerial bombardment wouldn't have worked because it would have taken too long. By the time Japan was ready to surrender, US and UK citizens would have been so tired of the war in the Pacific that it could have easily turned into another Vietnam situation: people dying, no real progress being made, and people getting tired of their loved ones getting shipped out to the Pacific. Japan would have actually been in a stronger bargaining position if the Allied countries were eager for the war to end, and would have actually been able to dictate terms of a peace agreement to the Allies knowing they were under pressure to have the conflict resolved. In fact, this seemed to be Japan's strategy at the end of the war: simply drag the conflict out long enough that the Allied Powers would be pressured by their citizens to end the conflict. At that time, Japan could propose its own peace treaty and have some leverage in the negotiations. That is also why, when Op. Downfall was being organized by the Allies, the one thing they all completely agreed on was that the war with Japan had to end before 1946 was over. They didn't think they could keep morale and support for the war strong enough to keep fighting through 1947-1948 I think, given the options he had, Truman made what he honestly believed was the best decision. I don't feel he was malicious or excessive in his judgement based on information that was available to him at the time. If all those generals were convinced the bombs weren't necessary, I can't help but wonder why none of them said anything. I don't think he was so determined to use the atomic bombs that he would have dropped them anyway. The bombs were dropped on targets of military importance, and ended up killing fewer people than what was expected of just the American casualty projections alone, and well below the total casualties of Operation Downfall would have been. He made what he thought was the best decision based on information he had, and I think that counts for something when you are asking if someone is a war criminal or not. The fact that he actually went to great measures to prevent MacArthur from using atomic bombs on China also tell me that he wasn't using them just for the hell of it.

Don't know that this is exclusively a military thing. Remember, people have been wearing hats for various reasons since time in memoriam. I've found a few different reasons: It was more common for men men to wear hats when outdoors. They were expected to "uncover" themselves when inside a church or at a religious place. This tradition dates back to when people often wore helms/helmets: removing the helm when in another's home showed trust in your guest (you didn't feel a need to protect yourself around them). By leaving it on, you were telling your guest that you would take advantage of their hospitality but didn't trust them enough to expose yourself to them. Might be related to the military reason also In America, people wore hats to protect themselves from the sun, dirt, and wind from outdoors. Wearing a hat in someone's home was implying their home was dirty or "outdoorsy" for lack of a better word On a related note, most people wear hats outdoors. The hat can get dirty and sweaty, so it would be considered polite to remove the hat upon entering another's home and leave it in a closet or space for outdoor shoes, coats, etc. I grew up on a horse ranch, and my house had a "muck-room" for leaving muddy shoes, work gloves, coveralls, etc that would get dirty from working with horses, cleaning out stalls, maintaining fences, sheds, etc. As much as you may not like it, a very common answer is that a person is simply expected to. Most books on etiquette say it is proper to do so, but don't go in to any real detail as to why. Still, there was a time in many countries (namely US and Western Europe) where everyone wanted to show how civilized they were, so books that said it was not proper to wear hats in doors would be a major factor in shaping social attitudes towards it. If the literate upper class practiced it, I can see many lower class individuals adopting similar practices to show they were civilized. Also remember, hats with low brims (such as many types of baseball cap) interfere with eye contact when speaking to people. You have an excuse to wear it outside in the sun, but wearing it indoors might give the impression you are trying to avoid eye contact. That's a very common nonverbal hint that someone has something to hide. With all that said, I think we also need to look at the context. The immediate problems I can see with wearing a hat in school are: It makes it harder for teachers to see if students are keeping their eyes on their own paper during exams Part of public school's function is to promote social/communication skills development. "Hiding" behind the brim of a hat when talking to people could interfere with that. I've heard some teachers say that hats are a distraction. Not sure if I believe that, but I'll list that too. I guess some people play with their hats in class. It might simply be against school dress code. Even if a school doesn't have an official uniform, it still has a dress code and hats may be prohibited. Even with all that said, this really varies from place to place. I went to school in a very rural, agricultural part of the US. It wasn't uncommon for students to wear caps in class in high school and most teachers didn't care at that point either. I guess they figured if someone was old enough to drive themselves to school, they were old enough to handle wearing a hat like a rational human being. Wow, I kinda rambled. Sorry for the long post, hehehe.

Thank you all for the input. It's something I'm really interested in, but I'm worried that getting a Master's right after graduating might make me "overqualified" for most of the entry level jobs out there. Still, it's good to have an idea of what I'm getting in to beforehand.

I've decided to apply to an M.S.S. program, and was curious if anyone here had done some grad school. If so, how does the workload differ from undergrad? Any advice for making the transition?

Yeah, it sucks when you're trying to sleep and someone's making noise. Just last week, the person in the apartment next door decided they needed to hang pictures at 2 am. Ear plugs are definitely a necessity.

Depends on what music you're after. I'm sure Amazon would have some. Or you can Google Viola tabs if you don't want to buy sheet music books. Tabs show finger positions instead of notes, but its the same idea.

I think it comes down to which style fits the story best. I couldn't imagine a vibrate, delicate, feminine-man anime version of a video game about World War I. Likewise, I don't think Pokemon would work if you "grittied" it up. Honestly, you should consider using whichever style brings your game to life. Also, stereotypes have a lot to do with it. A certain character will need to physically look the part. Some character types lend themselves to an anime style, some don't. It all depends on who is in your story and what their role is.

I'm afraid the chain chomp from Link's Awakening wins out over all of them. If only you could keep him... My problem with Navi is most of the things she "helps" you with, you more than likely have already figured out. "This door has iron bars! You can't open it with your bare hands!" You don't say, Navi? And here I thought a seven-year-old elf could bend those bars into a pretzel knot. Cutie from Astyanax = greatest fairy assistant ever.

I have a Galaxy Note, and it has a pretty good battery. Then again, the phone is large enough to accommodate a pretty big battery, so that may have something to do with it. To get a little more life out of your Android phone per charge, you can disable GPS and Wifi when you don't need them, and also end process on any continuous refresh apps/widgets you have (like an email or weather app that refreshes every fifteen minutes). If you want to keep those running, you can just set them to manual refresh to save data and battery life. That's only if you really want to milk every hour out of your battery though.

I can understand how this might be intimidating. When I started university, I did two years at a local school in the middle of nowhere Texas. Then, I got a chance to transfer to a school in Washington, D.C. and did another four years there. I stood out quite a bit at first (and still do, somehwat), but you get settled in after a while. Roommates are great for making friends and networking, and dorms always have some events where everyone in the building is invited (like a movie night or a video game tournament). You can always make friends in your classes, since there's a good chance you'll have similar interests. At the very least, you'll have the excuse of organizing study groups with classmates if you want to connect with them (no one's going to turn down the chance for that with midterms or finals looming over them). Another good option is to find the university office that manages student organizations. Go to their website or pay them a visit, and they can give you a list of different student orgs and what each one's interest is. That way, you can join a group with similar interest, make some friends, do some networking, and actively contribute to the school community. If anything will help you fit in with a new crowd, it's being an active participant and taking an invested interest in said community. University is all about finding out what's out there and seeing new and different things. I think you'll do just fine. Good luck to you.

Been a while since I've had an iPhone, but here are my thoughts on the two. It really depends on what you want. Android is a lot "freer" in that just about anyone can develop apps for it and there aren't as many built-in limits on what type of apps you can run (namely emulators). Also, Android phones/tablets have a file registry while iPhones/iPads don't, so uploading and downloading content is much simpler on them (There are workarounds and some websites make special Apple apps for uploading documents, but don't expect to upload docs/files to an email like you would on a PC). Also, Android devices are typically much more customizable and have wonderful user communities where you can get help with just about anything. The advantage to Apple is that there's a much less chance of bugs, errors, etc. They're really good "pick up and use" devices, so if you will just surf the internet, check facebook, buy music, and make calls/texts, and possible download a few ebooks, an iPhone will do that just fine with a very simple and straightforward interface. You'll be limited to using only Apple iStore apps unless you jailbreak the device (which will void your warranty, but is usually pretty safe I understand). You won't be able to run any third party apps/games/software because of this, though. My personal opinion: Android is better. More options with what you can do with it, and it will still do the routine email/texting/social media thing if that's all you want from your phone. Apple devices are great, but they're pretty restricting in what they'll let you do with the phone you paid money for. Either one is a solid phone though, and it really comes down to what you plan on using it for.

Had the pleasure of traveling to Jordan last summer. Here are some photos of Petra: That's al-Khezneh (The Treasury). It's actually not a treasury, but a tomb. Made a special appearance in an Indiana Jones movie. Just to give you an idea of how big this place is. I'm standing about five feet in front of it and I'm about 5'8" Here's some more of the ancient city. These are actually all tombs, not houses: a literal city of the dead. The site of the actual city is located a little further out of the canyon these are built in to. Might upload more Jordan pics later.

Gregor's supports with anyone are brilliant. The guy's a Russian Don Juan. I also enjoyed Tharja/feMU supports. Actually, Tharja in general is pretty comical too; she over-embellishes her stereotype to the point it becomes awesome. Sumia's supports with Frederick are pretty good, but kinda sad. Poor girl, she destroys everything she touches.

Sumia takes priority over everyone else. I was kinda annoyed to see you couldn't S support Chrom and Cordelia. Not sure why, since you can have Chrom marry Olivia (a girl he's just met) and you have all of one map to raise their support level. As for marrying someone else, you can possibly have Chrom S support Sully or Maribelle(if you want). If you're playing a female, you can S Support Crom and your avatar by the time he picks his wife too. Just use them together on every map you can until they reach S support.

Don't know about a full team yet, but I've been pretty happy with how Merc/Hero Cordelia and Wyvern/Griffon Knight Nowi turn out in my playthroughs. Both deal good damage, dodge reliably, and have enough HP to take hits when they don't evade. Panne also makes a pretty dangerous Wyvern unit, though I might make her a thief next time around.