Meshugger

I have actually read "The Horror at Red Hook". It lacked suspense compared to other novels that he wrote. Simply rubbish since most of the story was about telling have bad different races were, namely: - Dutch: Oppurtunistic and no culture, simply lived to do business - Blacks: Ugly savages - Arabs: Ugly savages - Kurds: Satanists - Syrians: Just evil - Italians, spaniards, greeks: No direct reference, except for neighbourhoods go bad where ever they move in. There was a some murder mystery, but it was in the background. Lovecraft was a huuuuge anglophile, btw. Thanks for the input, but I know. Lovecraft himself wrote later in his memoirs that he considered the piece lacklustre and full of vitriol. But that's the point, that's hy it's so tasty to analyze. You'd be surprised how much of that percieved racial hate was just a product of the times, not a majority opinion, but there was a widespread acceptance in that America that foreign races, particularly Slavs and Asians were inferior as a race and deserve to be treated unjustly. Hell, when the Johnson-Reed Act went active in '24 (IIRC), some of the European countries got so minuscule immigration "slots"(percentage of new immigrants per country based on the 1890 census of all things) that tens of thousands of people were practically stranded in fascist Europe. I found a source that guesstimated that for instance over 300 000 European Jews that got screwed over by the Act were three hundred thousand Jews that later found themselves in concentration camps. It wasn't easy to get to Latin America, immigration required serious money, something that the congress who moaned over "the Polish ghettos emptying themselves into America" never really got. Penniless peasents did not get to immigrate. Good point. But you forgot the Irish

I just experienced the worst kind of weather so far in this winter: -20 Celsius, with stormy winds. We have had -30 C earlier, but there was no wind then, as it should be. That weather was actually doable, albeit annoying. This cold however, was so piercing through the skin that it felt like your spine was going to crack.

I have actually read "The Horror at Red Hook". It lacked suspense compared to other novels that he wrote. Simply rubbish since most of the story was about telling have bad different races were, namely: - Dutch: Oppurtunistic and no culture, simply lived to do business - Blacks: Ugly savages - Arabs: Ugly savages - Kurds: Satanists - Syrians: Just evil - Italians, spaniards, greeks: No direct reference, except for neighbourhoods go bad where ever they move in. There was a some murder mystery, but it was in the background. Lovecraft was a huuuuge anglophile, btw.

I have played Kotor 2 with TSLRCM. I can highly recommend it, it pretty much adds everything except the Genoharadan-quest. You have to register to the forums to get the files though. And remember, you have to install the patches in a cumolative order, otherwise it will not work. Thus, 1) Install Kotor 2 2) Install highres-movie and music-patches 3) Install the official Kotor 2 1.01-patch 4) Install TSLRCM 5) Install TSLRCM: patch a 5) Install TSLRCM: patch b 6) Install TSLRCM: patch c 7) Install TSLRCM: patch d(if there was a 'd'-version, can't remember). Play

Well, your weapon skills have gone the way of the shooter, and (early on, at least) cover is more important than equipment, but you still level-up your other abilities, and you still have the all-important pause function in combat where you can issue orders. Equipment itself is more sparse, with character progression defined by squad-made upgrades rather than by looting gear with a higher roman numeral at the end of its name. (I still consider this valid RPG progression; it's just more granular than ME1's was. That said, I haven't gotten any upgrades yet, so whether they provide noticeable benefits remains to be seen.) Plus, a large part of the appeal of the game is in dealing with the NPCs, and, according to Pop, they've built in at least a little reactivity to your decisions. I don't know where that puts the game on your personal the "Action RPG -- Shooter w/ RPG Elements" continuum. As someone who doesn't generally enjoy shootery combat, I'm still having fun. Caveat: I'm playing as a Sentinel, which allows me to play in what is probably the least-shootery way possible. Tech Armor gives you some freedom in ignoring cover from when you want to, and you've got a non-firearm power for every occasion. Thank you, that was quite informative! I will have some consideration to do. jaguars4ever: I hear ya, bro. Jugs are made to be shown and to bounce. Pathetic, Bioware, Pathetic.

Ditto, you never really had a free weekend while you were studying, mentally speaking. There was always a project/exam/task that you had to plan for the next week. Of course you always made things worse by doing "lets have a couple of beers and see what happens" 1-2 times a week. Don't get me on doing a Master's thesis while working. Avoid, avoid, avoid. I have a friend that started to do his PhD 3,5 years ago. Then he got married. Then they got an apartment. Then they had a child. Thankfully, those who grant his scholarship understands that things might go a bit slow when a lot is going on in your personal life and they are still funding him. But still... Get the hell outta here! Now i am getting really envious

he was backlit behind a screen when i saw him the first time, so all we got was his shadow. the second show i saw i don't recall what he did (same tour, different venue, however). taks It was the same thing when i saw Tool a couple of years ago. Completely backlit so we could only see a a giant silhuette of him during the 2-2,5h concert. Quite odd since he actually talked a lot to the audience and made jokes between the songs as well. I think that Maynard probably has the driest humor of any "superstar" that i know of. They had cool visualeffects during the show though.

He basically applied what he read in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". The man said so himself. I read the art of war for fun, and with curious respect I would ask what precisely he took? Beyond the basic principles of preparation and leadership. In my copy of "The Art of War", which was translated by Samuel B. Griffith(ISBN 978-1-84483-179-1), there's a whole chapter about Mao Tse-Tung and how the book "the art of war" inspired his guerilla warfare. Basically, he implemented the methodology of the enemy never knowing what he was doing, causing constant distress among the enemy in order to lessen morale.

He basically applied what he read in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". The man said so himself.

Lame sex aside, does this game even feel like an RPG, when Volourn starts to say that Bioware are stretching it, i do not know what to believe.

- Joseph Stalin I happen to agree with him on that. What would a "serious" pundit make out of me? Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck? who-hooo?

Those "sex"-scenes in ME2, urgh. Garrus actually worked, but the rest? Were's the passion? Where's the lust? Bah. GTAIV atleast managed to make something tacky into something funny. P.S. FFX was awesome.

So... what you're saying is... you need a balance between the two? Something like that. How do you minimize the abuse of power the best?

Killian begins to sing! We built this tittie, We built this tittie with silicone Say you don't know me, or recognize my face Plastic surgery does that, its a change of pace Knee deep in the inplants, sinking in your plight Too many incisions scarring up the night Botox deadens the wrinkles, Watch for that needle Don't you remember? We built this tittie We built this tittie with silicone! Congratulations, now that song is in my head for the rest of the day.

Personally, i have a hard time between the two, since in one way, they are very equal: wanting prosperity for everyone. In another way, they are complete opposites: One wants to the state to fuse capital into the economy in order balance the ups and downs in the long run, while the other wants to limit the power of the state so that the economy would balance itself out. My problem comes from that they both deal with power. With one, the state can grow too powerful and corrupt and can even hinder development. The other can also corrupt and hinder the economy because of those in wealth will do anything keep it, even influencing the state to make laws to protect their interests. That's my two cents.

Get your ass to the tit-thread(ME2) then, we need you!

Yeah, you tell them soldier! How does it feel to be aroused by mere geometry you fools? WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? tittieeeeeees, tehehehe

Before starting to throw pies at each other, remember this: - Friedrich Hayek on Keynes death. - John Maynard Keynes on Hayek's book "The Road the Serfdom". ...and we're off!

The little that i have seen of Glen Beck is that he is behaving like a incompetent, loud baffoon. Even if his message was peace, love and understanding, he would make me want to napalm a whole village of cute Pikachu's.

THE WITCHER DID IT

No, I am upset because: 1) 12 000 years ago, a group of humans (men, woman, children) crossed the Bering Strait and discoverred America 2) entire nations (men, woman, children) have explored Africa since the dawn of time 3) people who live in the Himalayas pretty much cross them daily and suddenly, when some rich white kid repeats their thing it's suddenly a great accomplishment of the male sex. Because western men crossed mountains, valleys and continents, which was unknown to them If a Himalayan female sherpa crossed the alps, then all the kudos to them.

Personally, i think it sends the wrong message to the avarage person. If you want some serious change in political policy, it doesn't work by simply voting, since you will most likely lack the capital to put your issue on the public agenda. If anything, i think that this will breed a generation cynicists, which is very bad for a democracy. That's why i think that we need our own 'Obsidian community'-mascot in congress. I have worked, and i am currently working for a multi-national cooperation. The previous one was a public company, but this one is private. I do not see coorporations speak as one voice in political matters. Everyone, from the janitor to the CEO seems to have different political views. If the company makes a donation for a political issue, it is usually based on the views of the board of management or the majority of the shareholders, not by the majority of those working there. That's why i see coorperations more as pools of money that those involved are interested in getting a share of, instead of a direct representation of people with a common goal in political issues. My point? The rich will have far greater influence on the political system than those with less. It has always been that way, but atleast people have tried to limit it. But now...

Huh? the game is released?

Please elaborate on that a bit more, that got me interested I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I'll try. I'd say men aren't better at working in a team than women, they're just better at making their goals happen. If it requires them working in the team, then so be it. The team is means of achieving a greater goal, something they can't get on their own. I believe if one man could take on a whole NFL team, they would. They don't need the team so what's the point of sharing with all those other people. Women are less able to work to achieve their goals, because they have a more difficult time dealing with obstacles. Whether they're people or some other barrier, they just have a hard time working in less than ideal conditions. Like I said before, they don't work in teams better by nature. It's a matter of goals and obstacles. That's actually interesting. I was always under the assumtion that men had it easier to form teams more quickly than women because they had the precondition of working as team from the days of being cavemen. When on the hunt, you had to count on each other and cooperate in order to succeed. Add this cycle for several generations and i would've even go as far to say that it is a natural instinct. Sure, every hunter in the team would've claim the whole prey for themselves if they could, but that was not the option, so they had to cooperate. That's the distinction that i am looking for; men can cooperate as long as it is beneficial for each one of them; women less so.