SteveThaiBinh

Samuel Alito is the new nominee. Are Republicans going to support this one?

Yes. A brief search will reveal that new members traditionally put their first posts in the Obsidian General forum and ask about the release date of Kotor 3. What does 'he is on the same net as...' mean? Same ISP, or does that mean it's definitely Metadigital himself?

Are you sayng it was never good, or that the quality has declined in recent times? I liked it a lot, but I haven't seen it at all for the last four or five years. I'm a little surprised to learn it's still going.

The medical term for sneezing is sternutation.

Hello, Money. Welcome to our communist utopia. Try not to make a mess. I still don't understand why the authors of a fairly idealistic US constitution two hundred years ago would include the possibility of politicians pardoning convicted criminals. It just seems strange, given their apparent desire to keep the three branches separate on other issues.

Random loot generator was a low-grade, constant, in the background kind of annoyance. NPCs not following you (Telos Surface was the worst) was a more localised, rarer, but stronger feeling of annoyance. But nothing that spoiled the overall effect of the game.

Well, at the moment no-one in the House of Lords is elected, and they are indeed all Lords (or Baronesses, or the like). Some are appointed (Tony's Cronies), and others are hereditary. However, if it's reformed so that some or all of the members are elected, it will probably still be called 'The House of Lords', for tradition's sake. They have very little formal power, and the House of Commons can push legislation through without their consent. They've had, in the past, very little moral authority because they're unelected. However, we currently have a government that is autocratic, unpopular, dishonest and inept. I mean moreso than usual. So the Lords are somewhat emboldened by their support in the country.

Magnesium chloride is the most common coagulant used in making tofu.

Interesting link. But it won't happen. Blair doesn't have the votes to get through anything that wasn't in his manifesto, and I don't think this was. It's a shame. More democracy is almost always a good thing.

That's a very odd power. I heard on the news that someone pardoned by Clinton in his last days is condemned in the latest UN Oil-for-Food report. If judges legislating from the bench is wrong (and it probably is), isn't politicians overturning sentences also wrong? It must be very frustrating for the Special Prosecutor to know that even if you're successful and this guy is sentenced for his crimes, he will likely get away with it anyway.

He makes more than most. He's not alone - our beloved deputy prime minister makes his fair share - but Mr. Bush is supposed to be the most powerful man in the world. That doesn't really prove very much. The rich vote for a party that will help them increase their wealth, rather than a party that will take some of their wealth and use it to benefit the poor (if such can indeed be said of the US Democrats). I can understand why rich people voted for Bush. I genuinely don't understand why so many poor people apparently voted for him as well. Can you explain?

Really? Even in the big open areas like Downtown? I'll admit I don't have a very powerful graphics card, but I upgraded from 512Mb to 1Gb RAM specifically for VtM:B, and it made a world of difference.

The mods used to be quite strict about not having 'Will Kotor3 be made?' discussions in the 'Ideas and Suggestions' thread. However, with relatively little interest or activity in the subject at the moment, it should be OK. I've heard nothing about it at all. The game hasn't even been announced. Could you head back to Gamespot and try to find your source for this? I'd be interested in taking a look. My feeling is that LucasArts is trying to stick to a new rule of releasing only two games per year from now on, and they have more profitable and popular titles than Kotor 3 in the pipeline. In a few years when they've run out of ideas, they may commission Kotor 3. Don't recognise the name, but sometime during 2004 there was an in-house LucasArts team working on Kotor3, and I think they were laid off, and the project shelved. Obsidian have sort of implied that they would like to do it, but also that they don't want to take on another project any time soon. A new LucasArts team could do it. Pretty much any developer with some RPG experience might, no?

I'm sure they'll just find someone worse. Actually, we foreigners enjoy being tortured. It's part of our culture.

There's a Greater Storm Beast? You mean, bigger than all the other Storm Beasts? Who knew? I must have played through that ending three or four times.

Depends on who gets the nuclear weapons, I suppose. RedStateLand should be happy to have no weapons or military, and retreat into isolationism and conservative utopia. BlueStateLand could have the military, the UN seat and the foreign policy, such as it is. The 'incumbent senators always win' thing might be something to do with electoral boundaries, but I'm not sure.

So many to choose from, but I like: "I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend."

Because the original poster clearly hasn't reached that part yet. If he wants to read the spoiler part, that's his choice.

One of the main things that scares people about a written constitution is that we might end up like the United States, unable to legislate to deal with serious issues like gun crime or terrorism without reference to a document that's a century out of date. Personally, I'd prefer a written constitution like the US', because I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Mine is not a mainstream position, though. At the moment, both the Law Lords and the House of Lords are popular, because they are the only existing barrier standing against Blair, his unpopular government (21% of adults voted for him, and most of them were holding their noses when they did so), and his stupid illiberal laws. An elected second chamber would be nice, but how do you prevent it becoming as dominated by public whim as the lower chamber? Whether you're a Brit abroad or an interested foreigner, your comments on our constitution (such as it is) are very welcome. Are we still on topic? I guess so. We're talking about the UK's version of the US Supreme Court, so it's somewhat relevant, though Harriet Miers has indeed been forgotten.

Just run past them. You don't need the experience, and it makes it more of a challenge later when

Has the much-trailed appearance of HK-47 happened yet? I'd be moderately interested in knowing what happens, though clearly not interested enough to buy the game or even google it.

Yet the law lords are senior judges appointed to the position, not the whole body of the House of Lords and certainly not the hereditary peers. It's very similar to the US Supreme Court. I think you usually get five Law Lords ruling on any one issue. The Parliament Act is rarely invoked because it's rarely needed. The House of Lords know that they don't have the mandate to oppose government legislation, so in most conflicts with the House of Commons they will eventually back down rather than provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is rarely used because the Lords are reluctant to stand up to the Commons, not the other way round.

I must say that I see Blair's motivations as suspect but I like the overall idea of either making the Second Chamber more relevant or making it little more than a standing advisory committee. What cannot stand is the mess it is now...a hodgepodge of hereditary privilege and lifetime patronage with the ultimate power over the judiciary. It seems the main problem with making it more relevant, accountable, etc is that the Second Chamber would then have "too much legitimacy" to not give it a more prominent role in legislation and/or a judicial confirmation process. The British system is now only nominally bicameral. A more "legitimate" Second Chamber would, essentially, turn the British system into more of a "true" bicameral system. It would be a radical change. I personally think Britain could use an elected (yet somewhat detached) Second Chamber that could block any non-financial bill. Just think, you guys wouldn't have had that horrid anti-fox hunting bill if you had a bicameral system. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The idea of having an unelected second chamber is that it's able to do its job better. That job, at the moment, is to revise and improve legislation, not to block or oppose it. If it had an electoral mandate, that would change. Unfortunately, our current government is addicted to bad, poorly-written legislation, and the lords are needed more than ever. I don't much like the idea of these unelected inbred morons in positions of power, so I'd be interested in hearing the case for a second elected chamber. How does having both Congress and Senate produce better legislation in the US than just having one or the other? I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Lords have ultimate power over the judiciary. Are you referring to the House of Lords in its capacity as the final court of appeal? If so, that's quite different to the House of Lords as a chamber that revises legislation.

I owned a BBC microcomputer. I still miss it occasionally. It was a nice shape and had the best keyboard I've ever used, though perhaps those role-tinted glasses are involved here. I own a PC, and would find it difficult to switch to console, because there are so few adventure games these days, the PC is the only platform on which you can play nearly all of them.

Sweden? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You aren't wearing your US rose-coloured glasses. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was wondering whether this was a quote, and where it was from. Interestingly, my US rose-coloured glasses have 'Made in China' on the frames.