779 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Eterna5 wrote...
Selective breeding is forced evolution. People in the past have even done so to themselves. 

No.

Selective Breeding is not forced evolution. It's breeding. Is there a discernable change in the baseline genetic structure from it? No. All you're doing is trying to bring out desirable traits and attributes. It's the same species. It's a different breed, but that's not evolution. It's a different breed.

Evolution causes changes in species to a point where the genetic structure is markedly different enough in function for it to be a separate species.

[Eterna]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

There you are Grey. We need your expertise here on Biological adaptation.

[Nerevar-as]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Seems many peoples issue with Synthesis is that it happens instantly rather than over a period of time.....



Sounds a bit nitpicky to me....

The difference between Science Fiction and Religion.

There´s also the part when you force it on every living creature and the obvious changes to thinking processes.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Auintus wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Exactly. Is our interference necessary? Is the Reaper's intereference necessary? With synthesis one changes nature. One is saying "I am above nature. Nature will bend to my will." That is what the Catalyst is saying. The hubris is astonishing.

A bear is strong. It is faster, more durable, and better insulated than the average human. Look at the human race. We're pitiful. No fur, no claws, basically nothing that makes us evolutionarily viable. Except our minds. Those minds birthed technology, which elevated us above animals and, yes, nature. Technology is our evolution. It's around us, on us, and, in time, within us.
Call it hubris if you like. The fact remains that the only reason our society exists as it does today is because decided that we could do better than evolution gave us. Synthesis is just another step.

Where do you draw the line? Where are your boundaries? What synthesis does affects ALL life, not simply advanced organic life. It's not an ideal state. It's not going to create a utopia unless you are going to brainwash everyone into believing that you have a utopia.

Forget the animals in nature. It's obvious no one gives a s*** about them.

* What about the husks who suddenly become sapient again? They gain back their memories of who they once were. What they once looked like. Now, they see themselves differently. Probably they're horrified. I'd be.

* And if people are still people, and not brainwashed into believing everyone is equal and the same, you now have a permanent underclass.

* Another thing that isn't resolved -- The Catalyst, now partly organic, still controls the reapers. I guess this is to make sure no upstart newly natural organics who arrive on the scene in 750 million years or so make synthetics, since that problem still exists -- oh he failed to mention that, did he?

* But EDI is alive and not alone. The same with the Geth. They are more organic. Organics are more machine. The union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both. The weaknesses of neither.

[Eterna]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
Selective breeding is forced evolution. People in the past have even done so to themselves. 

No.

Selective Breeding is not forced evolution. It's breeding. Is there a discernable change in the baseline genetic structure from it? No. All you're doing is trying to bring out desirable traits and attributes. It's the same species. It's a different breed, but that's not evolution. It's a different breed.

Evolution causes changes in species to a point where the genetic structure is markedly different enough in function for it to be a separate species.

It most certainly is forced evolution. You are selecting certain traits and through generations changing a species to reflect those traits. Synthesis doesn't restructure DNA either, it adds to it. 

[Fawx9]

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Technology that does what? 

Add green circuit boards to our face and let us see in the dark? It didn't heal joker, people still use computers the same way, no one was shown having super powers so what the hell did it do? Outside of giving machines feelings(something EDI already had) and letting Krogan build bigger buildings there is no real benefits shown. Unless you count getting along with the space cuttlefish that were busy destorying your families and turning them into abominations a few months ago. 

[Eterna]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Auintus wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Exactly. Is our interference necessary? Is the Reaper's intereference necessary? With synthesis one changes nature. One is saying "I am above nature. Nature will bend to my will." That is what the Catalyst is saying. The hubris is astonishing.

A bear is strong. It is faster, more durable, and better insulated than the average human. Look at the human race. We're pitiful. No fur, no claws, basically nothing that makes us evolutionarily viable. Except our minds. Those minds birthed technology, which elevated us above animals and, yes, nature. Technology is our evolution. It's around us, on us, and, in time, within us.
Call it hubris if you like. The fact remains that the only reason our society exists as it does today is because decided that we could do better than evolution gave us. Synthesis is just another step.

Technology is also our greatest flaw. It has the power to undo our entire race if mistakes are made. 

www.youtube.com/watch

Science is our greatest tool. With it, we can create worlds, and destroy worlds.

The ending assumes that we will ultimately end up Destroying ourselves with it. 

[Spartas Husky]

Whoever doesn't believe breedin isn't evolution, look to our pets.

Natural selection yields a higher chance of survival to those with certain traits that give them an edge in their environment.

Breeding places a priority of survival when it comes to genes to those with desirable traits.

Those with traits unsuited or undesirable, die/are not allow to reproduce

In the end it leads to the same process. Certain traits are passed which are looked upon with favor by either lady luck or ... a breeder.

[Eterna]

Fawx9 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Technology that does what? 

Add green circuit boards to our face and let us see in the dark? It didn't heal joker, people still use computers the same way, no one was shown having super powers so what the hell did it do? Outside of giving machines feelings(something EDI already had) and letting Krogan build bigger buildings there is no real benefits shown. Unless you count getting along with the space cuttlefish that were busy destorying your families and turning them into abominations a few months ago. 

Synthesis ensures that our technology will never be more advanced than we are. That removes the technological singulairty because we would always have the means to outwit or combat our technology should something go wrong. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...
People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Yes but not everyone in the galaxy relys on danaerous technology, nor is everyone who does use said technolgy a danger to the galaxy at large. You're employing a possiblity to justify the action, we don't throw people in jail because they might commit murder.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Eterna5 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
Selective breeding is forced evolution. People in the past have even done so to themselves. 

No.

Selective Breeding is not forced evolution. It's breeding. Is there a discernable change in the baseline genetic structure from it? No. All you're doing is trying to bring out desirable traits and attributes. It's the same species. It's a different breed, but that's not evolution. It's a different breed.

Evolution causes changes in species to a point where the genetic structure is markedly different enough in function for it to be a separate species.

It most certainly is forced evolution. You are selecting certain traits and through generations changing a species to reflect those traits. Synthesis doesn't restructure DNA either, it adds to it. 

You're talking microevolution. It is a various number of changes within a species. You're making new breeds, but you're not making a new species that is discernable in the allele structure to make it a markedly different species that is not capable of reproduction with an original member. 

As for you're synthesis quote, you're dear pal star jar contradicts you. He specifically mentions that you are changing the very matrix of life and creating a new framework, a new DNA. 

Or you can be like me and call synthesis vitalism mystic crap. That's really all it is.

[Rikketik]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
* What about the husks who suddenly become sapient again? They gain back their memories of who they once were. What they once looked like. Now, they see themselves differently. Probably they're horrified. I'd be.

I always wondered where this argument came from. I see a husk reacting with something that could be called bewilderment when it became 'synthesised', but how that does that imply that he suddenly became sapient and even got its memories back? Especially the latter makes little sense, as its memories were completely erased -- replaced by tech, as Mordin would say it.

No offense, this argument always felt like someone's headcanon that people adopted as canon because it's just one more reason why one wouldn't want to choose Synthesis.

My personal interpretation of that scene is that the husk looks 'surprised' because the Reaper behind suddenly realized what was happening. I might be completely wrong too, but it makes more sense for me than the notion of every husk becoming sapient somehow.

[AresKeith]

Fawx9 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Technology that does what? 

Add green circuit boards to our face and let us see in the dark? It didn't heal joker, people still use computers the same way, no one was shown having super powers so what the hell did it do? Outside of giving machines feelings(something EDI already had) and letting Krogan build bigger buildings there is no real benefits shown. Unless you count getting along with the space cuttlefish that were busy destorying your families and turning them in
to abominations a few months ago. 

That was something else I didn't like in control and synthesis

[Fawx9]

Eterna5 wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The longer you hold your breath under water, the more adept your lungs become at hlding said breath. Eventually youd be able to hold your breath for more than a minute after years of swimming and holding your breath daily. 

You would have changed for the better, but you would have had no choice in the matter. Is this wrong? 

Underlined the problem with your interpretation, you're treating evolution as an overall improvement, it's an adaptation to a given environment, it's not a steady line forward there are trade offs. An organism can either seek environment which is more suited to it's current adaptation or try it luck in surviving one it isn't suited for.

In your anology the person is better at swimming, whether or not that's a benefit is determined by their enviorment only a specific benefit to them. Someone who relies more on mountain biking gets no benefit from being able to hold their breath. So yes it's wrong to force them to change without need.

People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Technology that does what? 

Add green circuit boards to our face and let us see in the dark? It didn't heal joker, people still use computers the same way, no one was shown having super powers so what the hell did it do? Outside of giving machines feelings(something EDI already had) and letting Krogan build bigger buildings there is no real benefits shown. Unless you count getting along with the space cuttlefish that were busy destorying your families and turning them into abominations a few months ago. 

Synthesis ensures that our technology will never be more advanced than we are. That removes the technological singulairty because we would always have the means to outwit or combat our technology should something go wrong. 

So it inbeded us with DBZ power leveling abilites. Got it. 

[Mahrac]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Yes but not everyone in the galaxy relys on danaerous technology, nor is everyone who does use said technolgy a danger to the galaxy at large. You're employing a possiblity to justify the action, we don't throw people in jail because they might commit murder.

Pretty sure I've heard of that one happening, unfortunatly.

[Eterna]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Yes but not everyone in the galaxy relys on danaerous technology, nor is everyone who does use said technolgy a danger to the galaxy at large. You're employing a possiblity to justify the action, we don't throw people in jail because they might commit murder.

Every spacefaring organic relies on dangerous technology. Everyone who uses that technology is a danger to the galaxy at large because everyone is liable to make a mistake. Intention does not matter, what matters are the reprecussions of the mistake. 

Today for example we have nuclear weaponry. One mistake could cause a nuclear war that could very well lead to the extinction of our entire species. 

The problem here is that you think of Synthesis as a punishment, it is not. IT is an upgrade that allows everyone to handle advanced technology safely. 

[Eterna]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
Selective breeding is forced evolution. People in the past have even done so to themselves. 

No.

Selective Breeding is not forced evolution. It's breeding. Is there a discernable change in the baseline genetic structure from it? No. All you're doing is trying to bring out desirable traits and attributes. It's the same species. It's a different breed, but that's not evolution. It's a different breed.

Evolution causes changes in species to a point where the genetic structure is markedly different enough in function for it to be a separate species.

It most certainly is forced evolution. You are selecting certain traits and through generations changing a species to reflect those traits. Synthesis doesn't restructure DNA either, it adds to it. 

You're talking microevolution. It is a various number of changes within a species. You're making new breeds, but you're not making a new species that is discernable in the allele structure to make it a markedly different species that is not capable of reproduction with an original member. 

As for you're synthesis quote, you're dear pal star jar contradicts you. He specifically mentions that you are changing the very matrix of life and creating a new framework, a new DNA. 

Or you can be like me and call synthesis vitalism mystic crap. That's really all it is.

Synthesis does not create new species. It attaches new components to pre existing DNA. It is a new DNA in the sense that it now has new components. The genes that make you who you are remain the same. JOker is still Joker, Garrus is still Garrus, Asari are still Asari. 

[Mcfly616]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Seems many peoples issue with Synthesis is that it happens instantly rather than over a period of time.....



Sounds a bit nitpicky to me....

The difference between Science Fiction and Religion.

There´s also the part when you force it on every living creature and the obvious changes to thinking processes.

I hear this sci fi vs religion/fantasy comparison all the time when it comes to the subject of synthesis....and I find it quite laughable because if thats the strongest argument one can come up with, well it just states their feelings towards the ending and nothing more. Seeing as how I could pull about 5-10 subjects out of the trilogy that are in no way supported by "science", and yet nobody feels the need to bring up the sci fi/fantasy argument on those occasions. Quite telling, really....

Second of all, nearly every entry within the sci fi genre (including books, movies and games) incorporates something that is not supported by real world science. Seems people always jump to the science part to support their argument, whilst completely disregarding the "fiction" part


And he's not "forcing" it. He's the avatar of our cycle, who embodies everybody's hopes of living another day. He's using a superweapon constructed by the united beings of the galaxy. It's called symbolism.

[Mr.House]

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Yes but not everyone in the galaxy relys on danaerous technology, nor is everyone who does use said technolgy a danger to the galaxy at large. You're employing a possiblity to justify the action, we don't throw people in jail because they might commit murder.

Every spacefaring organic relies on dangerous technology. Everyone who uses that technology is a danger to the galaxy at large because everyone is liable to make a mistake. Intention does not matter, what matters are the reprecussions of the mistake. 

Today for example we have nuclear weaponry. One mistake could cause a nuclear war that could very well lead to the extinction of our entire species. 

The problem here is that you think of Synthesis as a punishment, it is not. IT is an upgrade that allows everyone to handle advanced technology safely. 

Why do plants, varren ect need to handle technology?

Modifié par Mr.House, 02 avril 2013 - 09:07 .

[Auintus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Where do you draw the line? Where are your boundaries? What synthesis does affects ALL life, not simply advanced organic life. It's not an ideal state. It's not going to create a utopia unless you are going to brainwash everyone into believing that you have a utopia.

Forget the animals in nature. It's obvious no one gives a s*** about them.

* What about the husks who suddenly become sapient again? They gain back their memories of who they once were. What they once looked like. Now, they see themselves differently. Probably they're horrified. I'd be.

* And if people are still people, and not brainwashed into believing everyone is equal and the same, you now have a permanent underclass.

* Another thing that isn't resolved -- The Catalyst, now partly organic, still controls the reapers. I guess this is to make sure no upstart newly natural organics who arrive on the scene in 750 million years or so make synthetics, since that problem still exists -- oh he failed to mention that, did he?

* But EDI is alive and not alone. The same with the Geth. They are more organic. Organics are more machine. The union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both. The weaknesses of neither.

That's the beauty of it. I don't draw the line. Why should we?
I never said utopia. Nothing in Synthesis ever said utopia. Drop the utopia.

Uh, okay?

Well, according to the ME3 multiplayer description for the Awakened Collector(which are husks of Protheans, as I'm sure you recall), they remember who they were. And check it out, they don't give a damn. They just go back to making themselves useful. Judging by that husks expression, I'd imagine it would be confusing as hell. Unless you're hopelessly attracted to your reflection, I'm sure you'd get over it. Brutes, on the other hand...

Permanent underclass of what? Husks? Everyone remembers. They know what they used to be. Would you look down on a husk knowing that it could have been you? Or a friend? Even if you did, enough people would get over it. Besides, husks, as I recall, are not reproductively viable. They wouldn't last long.

By which point their is no reason why one would not have a small-scale Synthesis-Crucible to welcome new species to the advanced society. If they choose not to, they can get wiped out by their synthetics, which will hopefully join or get wiped out. And the Catalyst existed to make a bridge between synthetics and organics. That bridge has been made. Mission accomplished.

Yep. Everything that I ever wanted from the world. Lucky bastards.

Modifié par Auintus, 02 avril 2013 - 09:11 .

[Mr.House]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Seems many peoples issue with Synthesis is that it happens instantly rather than over a period of time.....



Sounds a bit nitpicky to me....

The difference between Science Fiction and Religion.

There´s also the part when you force it on every living creature and the obvious changes to thinking processes.

I hear this sci fi vs religion/fantasy comparison all the time when it comes to the subject of synthesis....and I find it quite laughable because if thats the strongest argument one can come up with, well it just states their feelings towards the ending and nothing more. Seeing as how I could pull about 5-10 subjects out of the trilogy that are in no way supported by "science", and yet nobody feels the need to bring up the sci fi/fantasy argument on those occasions. Quite telling, really....

Second of all, nearly every entry within the sci fi genre (including books, movies and games) incorporates something that is not supported by real world science. Seems people always jump to the science part to support their argument, whilst completely disregarding the "fiction" part


And he's not "forcing" it. He's the avatar of our cycle, who embodies everybody's hopes of living another day. He's using a superweapon constructed by the united beings of the galaxy. It's called symbolism.

The cruible affects all life, including life not invovled in the fight. Shepard is forcing a change on everything. Plants, fungus, animals, robots ect, even if they where not invovled in the war.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Rikketik wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
* What about the husks who suddenly become sapient again? They gain back their memories of who they once were. What they once looked like. Now, they see themselves differently. Probably they're horrified. I'd be.

I always wondered where this argument came from. I see a husk reacting with something that could be called bewilderment when it became 'synthesised', but how that does that imply that he suddenly became sapient and even got its memories back? Especially the latter makes little sense, as its memories were completely erased -- replaced by tech, as Mordin would say it.

No offense, this argument always felt like someone's headcanon that people adopted as canon because it's just one more reason why one wouldn't want to choose Synthesis.

My personal interpretation of that scene is that the husk looks 'surprised' because the Reaper behind suddenly realized what was happening. I might be completely wrong too, but it makes more sense for me than the notion of every husk becoming sapient somehow.

Keiji's Grey Box becomes sapient according to the "twitter canon". Before synthesis, Keiji's Grey Box is a recording of a bunch of memories that Keiji and Kasumi shared + a bunch of stuff that would embarrass the Alliance. IOW Tech. It is nothing more than extending this.

[Eterna]

Mr.House wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People who rely on dangerous technology in space benefit from being integrated with that technology. 

Yes but not everyone in the galaxy relys on danaerous technology, nor is everyone who does use said technolgy a danger to the galaxy at large. You're employing a possiblity to justify the action, we don't throw people in jail because they might commit murder.

Every spacefaring organic relies on dangerous technology. Everyone who uses that technology is a danger to the galaxy at large because everyone is liable to make a mistake. Intention does not matter, what matters are the reprecussions of the mistake. 

Today for example we have nuclear weaponry. One mistake could cause a nuclear war that could very well lead to the extinction of our entire species. 

The problem here is that you think of Synthesis as a punishment, it is not. IT is an upgrade that allows everyone to handle advanced technology safely. 

Why do plants, varren ect need to handle technology?

Because they will be subjected to said technology. The technology of galatic civilizations affects the entire galaxy, lesser organics will also need safeguards. In order for Synthesis to work everything needs to be changed and brought to the same level. I think the plants are a bit much though. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 02 avril 2013 - 09:13 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...
Every spacefaring organic relies on dangerous technology. Everyone who uses that technology is a danger to the galaxy at large because everyone is liable to make a mistake. Intention does not matter, what matters are the reprecussions of the mistake. 

Today for example we have nuclear weaponry. One mistake could cause a nuclear war that could very well lead to the extinction of our entire species. 

The problem here is that you think of Synthesis as a punishment, it is not. IT is an upgrade that allows everyone to handle advanced technology safely. 

Thanks for telling me what I think, but no I don't think it's a punishment. I think it's a severe solution to problem that isn't as dire as it's made out to be. I don't think it's needed, we've had nuclear weapons since 1945, I'm not about to start advocating that every life from on our planet undergoes gene theopy to make them more resistant to radiation because something might go wrong down the line.

You know what researchers found in some of those radiated area used for bomb testing? Plant and sea life not found anywhere else because they're uniquely suited to survive the radation levels, and it can thrives because those levels keep away the competition. Life adapts on it's own, there is absolutely no need to force it hand.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 02 avril 2013 - 09:14 .