Walsingham

I really liked slither. Although now I think about it that had some awesome gratuitous boobage.

What I meant to say is that I for one welcome our new terrifying robot overlords.

Today I discovered that the secret heart of comedy is placing a large towelling dressing-gown over a small energetic dog.

Lajcek: - Yes we could try to beat the trend. But all obesity is doing is making us die from different things. Beat obesity and we'll only die of something else. For example, if we beat obesity by all running ten miles a day we'd have tremendous hearts, but out joints and backs would be completely ****ed. You see it with soldiers. Although I'll grant you never see people dying of joint pain. - I think you massively underestimate how much of ordinary soldiering can be done by a robot. Delivering indirect fire (artillery), communications, logistics bulk supply are all things robots are already involved in. But if you accept the purpose of warfighting infatry as being to exist as a certain scale, and require other infantry to remove them then why shouldn't robots do the job? Look at this way: the principle way arseholes beat democracies is by inflicting miniscule casualties (by traditional standards) on their soldiers. It means we are unable to use military force as part of foriegn policy, even though it would be very convenient to do so. But if you replace the poor sodding infantry with robots, no more letters home to mum. I think the whole thing is utterly terrifying, and their should be a moratorium on using robots because it encourages warfighting, and robots themselves have zero conscience which multiplies the risk of atrocity.

Illicit drugs are a major earner for most terrorist movements. The days of terrorism being solely funded by 'contributions' from the population are long gone. The money can come directly as with the Shining Path, indirectly through putting such a high tax on villages that drugs are the only way to make the cash as with the Talibs, or very indirectly through taxing dealers to operate through their controlled areas as with the IRA. I really think it's an exaggeration to say that US policy is only right 'twice a day', even if it's picturesque to do so. If you read articles written by US Army officers they are often to a very high academic standard. They are frequently nuanced, especially as experience of countering terror overtakes half a century of defending the World against the Soviets. But you have to recognise that the mix of abilities, and understanding, coupled with the mass mix of agencies and commands leads to the confusion I mentioned before. Enoch should back m up on this, if he's reading.

Glad to know I wasn't utterly confused. I think it's dangerous to describe any US behaviour as stemming from a single policy. To do so underestimates the byzantine layers and distances involved. Some US counter-terror policies are fething genius. Some are blindingly stupid. I do think it's a fair opint, however, to observe that this lack of cohesion means that two equally intelligent policies can and do work at cross-purposes. For example attacks on drug cultivation, and softly softly development of rural areas in conflicts like Columbia and Afghan.

You really need to stop this under-the-counter lobbying for your de-acronymization forum app, man. It's getting out of hand. It was actually unintentional. I don't think I could have planned it better on purpose. I think there are definitely differences between the parties. A big fat difference is that one of the parties is run by a power-crazed scotsman who believes government be involved in everything and actually run nothing.

I'll be honest: I don't mind Steam checking on me. Because they give me stuff to stay amused, like chatting to friends, coop gaming made easier, and the in game web browser. I have no beef with it.

I put in several hours on FO3 (vanilla - I can't currrently afford the expansions) today and identified two things which work veryw ell in breaking immersion: 1. Magically respawning enemies. I can leave a point, come back five minutes later, and it's as if they've been teleported in. - Make respawn times scale to difficulty - Make respawned NPCs act differently if their location is littered with corpses. Be inquisitive, act defensive. Anything. 2. Locations are simply a mess. I accept untidiness is probably a given in the aftermath of a global holocaust, but untidiness isn't random junk strewn everywhere. Just come round to my house for an example. Inhabited areas have paths through the junk, and piles of junk in corners. - Who 'lives' in an area. What things do they use? Are they organised? THREE things. The THREE main immersion breakers... 3. Everyone except raiders is highly civilised. They slot neatly into roles as traders and waitresses and guards. FFS surely a key point is the breakdown and end of civilisation. - People raised outside vaults won't be able to read, wont have watched TV, and will be very cautious around outsiders

If you want to have a fight over Katyn, go ahead and start one. This tiresome sniping impresses no one. We had a 'fight' over Katyn. You said it was an irrelevance. Of course, you also claim that the Ukrainian famine wasn't deliberate or a consequence of forced collectivisation. So I suppose Katyn must pale by comparison. You can't expect us to just gloss over your eagerness for bloodshed.

Health: Surely what we need is precisely a keen Libdem aching to prove they've got the cojones to govern? Someone who won't be dissuaded by reasoned argument or union aggression, but will just set about the NHS with a bludgeon and halo. Education: Any mentalism in education would be met with strong and effective resistance by the teachers and heads unions. There isn't the public conviction for change that there is in the NHS. Besides, if you want to arrest the trend for the Libdems you need to give them a chance to prove they are arse. Or do you WANT the libdems to get in at the next election, untainted by reality after a few years of tory austerity? I may be channeling the spirit of Patton, but I say let them stick their necks right out; then we can cut them off.

The best way to combat terrorism is, IMO with intelligence. There is no way that a big army can find a small group of terrorists that bicker more amongst themselves and are not a united entity. To put it in an analogy, you do not kill flies with a shotgun. Thus I believe that the information that can be extracted out of terrorists is our biggest weapon in the war and this bill helps with that. You are correct that intelligence is the key to counter-terrorism. But using blanket dictatorial measures - while efficient on paperwork - undermines the public resolve to continue the fight. It splits support even more than woolly 'liberal' thinking already does. Again, i can understand the use of 'lax' evidence in cases where an individual is apprehended in a warzone. perhaps teh only proof required there is that they were taken in an appropriate location, combined with - I dunno - chemical forensics. Stuff that would normally only qualify as circumstantial. But reducing the evidential burden in cases involving US citizens sounds like mentalism. Or have I got confused?

I'm still finding it funny that LOF is absent from this discussion, but trying to force Lenin into a discussion about high school student's tee-shirts. Go on, LoF. Get over to Greece!

It's not strawmanning. If LoF was principle he wouldn't get involved until more than 22,000 people had been killed.

VF wise. Paypal are barely regulated, with fraud ago go to prove it. I'm amazed people still use them.

That wasn't a lamp. Anyway, although I'm disappointed by how the 1950s seem to dominate all styling at the moment, I have to concede that in terms of fighting aliens it kind of works. Personally I think they should have gone with the 1980s.

I remember saying almost exactly the same thing to a friend some time ago. There was something that made the originals special which cannot be clearly explained. You might call it "soul" I guess. And with Obsidian, I believe that soul will return, simple as that. That's why I know I'll enjoy it both as a great FPRPG and a great Fallout game. yep. it felt like the cast of Friends trying to recreate a Monty Python episode. Absolutely spot on.

We are all going to die.

What the hell was that about samurai? EDIT: I loved the homework eating one. When I was at boarding school I had one of the junior years enter my study, looking distracted. Thinking he needed support I offerred him a handful of mixed raisins, nuts and chocolate chips from my desk. He accepted the entire bag and left. I was in teh middle of work so I left it at that. Then, one hour later, he cameback in and handed me the bag. Working on a hunch I fast established he'd been through and systematically eaten all the chocolate chips and NOTHING ELSE. Of course I accused him of being stark raving mad to which he shrugged his shoulders and said "It's a dog eat other dog's sweeties world." Then left.

I think they should have shot the student in the white turban. Okay, maybe that was a joke for too few people. Basically I was trying to point out that managing a mixed pot of cultures is difficult. I think we should send a few companies of ghurkas in red jackets to bolster the school governors.

What's up? ugh far too much to go into let's just say things are most definitely not going well at the moment Come on, mate. If you can't share your innermost feelings with a bunch of transnational nerds, freaks, and political extremists then who can you share them with?

The more I think about it the more I come back to this critical difficulty with evidence. The quality of evidence taken in a warzone is (realistically) probably never going to satisfy a civilian jury. However, if we assume that there are terrorists out there somewhere how do we propose tackling them? Do we not tackle them? Do we simply permit any agent of a foreign power who is not in uniform to murder our citizens with complete impugnity?

That's really what I was driving at.

So what your saying is that if we flooded the average English town centre with chimps on a Firday night we'd actually improve the average standards of behaviour.

It would be in the stricter sense that it's set in the future with higher technology than seen today. However, for me that's like saying that, for example, Annie Hall would be sci-fi if it was set in 2020s with a scene where a futuristic object makes an appearance. It's true, but it's also meaningless. So the whole dystopian 'everyones stopped having babies', and the consequences thereof thing doesn't strike you as categorically scifi? Because although I only saw Annie Hall about twenty years ago I don't remember there being future-shocked crazed mobs on dirt bikes with molotov ****tails.