algroth

Not being American I have to ask, how exactly are the rules for the immigrant vote in the USA? Based on what I'm reading you need US citizenship to be able to vote, which not all immigrants would have, and less so any illegal ones. If so I'm not sure by what means you can affect the results by "illegal immigrant votes".

Legendary music artist and producer David Axelrod died today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTztKbN0Mro R.I.P.

Black Sabbath are having their last ever concert tonight before bowing out for good. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38871686 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH5f-QJcVN0

Step 1 to breaking the Democrat/Republican duopoly is to get Libertarian and Green Party candidates on the stage. Gary Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 States in 2016. There is no good reason he should not have been invited. Not saying that would have gone well necessarily.... but still This poses an issue... On one I do think stepping out of a two-party system is for the best, and there should be a chance given to more parties than just the Dems and Republicans; but living in Argentina where we've always had multiple parties in the running, we've had to sit through twelve years of Kirchnerism not least because the opposition was divided between several smaller parties, none of which wanted to unite or give up their part for the sake of a "greater good". Trump could very well slip into his re-election by finding himself pitted against several "weaker" candidates instead of a unified opposition against him. It won't be a free for all. There will still be a standard. I've always thought ballot access should be the standard. If you can get on the ballot in all 50 Sates then every voter can vote for you. You should be in the debate. There are only four political parties in the US with the wherewithal to get a candidate on the ballot everywhere. The Democrats. the Republicans, the Libertarians, and the Green Party. Indeed, my problem however is that between those four parties, three of them are in danger of feeding from each other's votes and thus creating a weaker opposition against the one left out. Assuming Trump will try to go for a re-election with (most likely) the Republican party, the opposition will be split between three parties each attempting to appeal to the same "half". I speak of this of what I've seen happen in practice in Argentina is all.

Step 1 to breaking the Democrat/Republican duopoly is to get Libertarian and Green Party candidates on the stage. Gary Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 States in 2016. There is no good reason he should not have been invited. Not saying that would have gone well necessarily.... but still This poses an issue... On one I do think stepping out of a two-party system is for the best, and there should be a chance given to more parties than just the Dems and Republicans; but living in Argentina where we've always had multiple parties in the running, we've had to sit through twelve years of Kirchnerism not least because the opposition was divided between several smaller parties, none of which wanted to unite or give up their part for the sake of a "greater good". Trump could very well slip into his re-election by finding himself pitted against several "weaker" candidates instead of a unified opposition against him.

For me it works either way, really. I'd have a more determined position if we knew what to expect of the expansion, but since we don't, I can't know in any way what would work best for what Obsidian have in mind.

I agree but I don't think diversity was a problem the first time around. Twin Elms was a *very* different city in feel, culture and appearance than Defiance Bay. I personally did not mind Twin Elms as much as I heard others do, but I still reckon the problem was if anything a lack of content more so than a lack of diversity.

I wouldn't hold my breath... In the director's commentary I recall Sawyer saying that they were not happy with the decision of adding a second big city, or at least the end result. If I recall correctly, they felt they were unable to develop it properly and give it the focus it was due and so on. I reckon they'll likely stick with one big city this second game (and no multi-level dungeon). Of course, maybe I'm wrong and maybe they do feel more confident in making two big cities instead of one.

I dislike the new stretch-goal myself. I think the voiceover work on the first Pillars was largely inconsistent, especially when dealing to the very minor/supporting characters. I fear that adding more voiceover work will dilute its quality instead of enhancing the game. I'd rather that money be used to acquire better talent to work on the already-planned V.O. instead. That said, I don't mind the addition of character voice set options, as I thought the ones we got were a tad limiting.

This, exactly. I really like the changed being implemented here.

Until the hipster comes by and points the original is still the best (or, Hitler is still the most Hitlerish, anyhow). Yeah, I think it's pretty undeniable that Bush was compared by someone or another as Hitler. So was Obama, so was *every* head of government at some point or another by some or other person following WWII. It's the original Godwin's Law in action, really.

http://theplaylist.net/denis-villeneuve-confirmed-direct-dune-20170201/ Denis Villeneuve is confirmed to direct Dune.

You recall correctly. I am slightly ashamed to admit I've only ever seen him live in the context of Asia, but even in that live show (and with a formation that essentially could have been a prog supergroup, including Carl Palmer, Steve Howe and Geoff Downes) they played a handful of tracks from their most reknown bands respectively and absolutely killed on each. No Tomorrow, U.K., Atomic Rooster or Crazy World of Arthur Brown though, unfortunately. ;_; (Not that I was expecting any though.)

John Wetton, bassist and vocalist for several bands including Family, Asia and most notably King Crimson, died today. Given the right band at least he was a monster. R.I.P.

I agree that it was motivated largely by the sovereigns' greed. It all falls down to power and money stands as a currency for such. Nevertheless the religious motivation proved successful for the larger mass of the army, and what I was pointing out to Ben was that had religion not been such a powerful ideological force back in those times, and had it been something else like, say, a political movement, patriotism, or even science, these would have provided the new necessity by which to justify the Crusades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTpkKKauPvM

but you just want to argue anyway. Not with what is said in the link, but rather the link's relevance to the discussion at hand (which is about the veracity of another article on a different matter).

I like sneks more than puppies, so I approve. :3

For some very few, it indeed was about money. Yet for the thousands peasants and for many knights and nobles actually, it was about religion exclusively. So while yes, maybe some of the minds behind it (though probably not all) did it for the money, the common "soldier" who chopped of Muslim heads did it for his God. I feel a lot of it falls down to ideology in the end. Ideology can come in the shape of religion or else, and it'll still drive people to conflict. Human beings as a species don't handle disagreements very well.

You speak about misinformation and fake news. What you're defending above is the promotion of fake news for a political end. So, history time. 1955 saw the first of a series of military coups d'etat in Argentina, in this case led by Eduardo Lonardi and Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, thus overthrowing Juan Domingo Perón. As per the norm with military dictatorships in South America, this came hand in hand with a lot of censorship and manipulation of information. However, in 1957, with Argentina still under power of Aramburu, a law was passed that marked the first time film was officially recognized as an artistic medium and thus defended by the Constitution from censorship as with all other artistic media. Of course, this moment of freedom of speech was eventually snuffed, but this change to the Constitution marked the first time the Argentinian government in any of its iterations granted film any of the protections shared by other artistic media. This is important, because whilst the dictatorship, as with any dictatorship, was a horrible thing in which civil rights were largely ignored, and censorship and power abuse abounded, you *cannot* move this pivotal point to the ensurance of freedom of speech in cinema ten years earlier just to allign historical facts to your political views. To do so is to be dishonest, it's to promote misinformation for your ideology's convenience. Likewise, to accuse Obama of having banned the people of Iraq from entry to the US so as to shift the blame he did not get at the time for other policies back to him, is to be dishonest. It likewise runs counter to the point: you want Obama to face the charges for things that he *did*, not for things that he *didn't*. You wouldn't charge a robber for rape so long as the latter may get him in prison for the former. That's not how justice works. Likewise (I hope) you wouldn't defend the charges for the latter just because you know the former to be true. So with all this said, you have a point, but it does not contradict the Washington Post's article, which is about an accusation Obama's administration is not guilty of.

I am not in disagreement with what you link there, but it doesn't negate the other article. Do I think that Obama (or whoever facilitated what is quoted on the video) should have gotten their due flack when these things occured? Absolutely. But Obama's no longer in power, and all of this looking back to blame him about new infringements to human rights serves no purpose when the man who is publicly signing them is right now seated where he is instead. Both should be held accountable for their respective actions, one doesn't negate the other just because they stand on opposite parties. So with all this said, I don't see the issue to protesting Trump right now, or for an article to combat a false claim regarding Obama's policies when compared to Trump (because what you quote above might be true, but it is not the same as the accusation that Trump is just "doing the same as Obama"). Maybe it should have been done sooner, but I think it's very disingenious to use this as an argument to deny the validity of protest right now.

Dunno, I'd say a 47-Pulitzer-winner newspaper is a pretty damn trustworthy source of information. Moreover, I don't see what in that article you are accusing of being untrustworthy or being made up, just saying the Washington Post is a "fake news site" won't make the article itself any less valid. Bring me a reliable source that contradicts what is being presented in this article and I'll concede it's a misinforming piece.

Oh yeah, this is not indicative of Boorman's overall career or my opinion of him, just that the film is a notorious flop even amidst fans of the director and the saga. I have my gripes with Boorman myself, I think his disparagement of the more, err... Fantastical genres (to my awareness at least) are visible in the films he's made in each (The Heretic, Zardoz, Excalibaur), and I do think these feel like very lazy films because of it. Deliverance, Hell in the Pacific and Point Break are all very good though.

Based on what Sawyer and the rest of the team have said in the director's commentary and The Road to Eternity, it seems that unfamiliarity to the engine and to softwares such as Maya and the likes played a big part in the delay. You can hear Josh commenting on how certain sections, animations and the likes took them ages to figure out at first which would have now been pretty easy and straightforward to do. And I also feel it will largely depend on the stretch goals for the Fig campaign - I reckon that dealing with 15-level dungeons and a second big city was most likely a pain and a burden on the development time that won't happen this time around either. Of course, I'm only making suppositions with all of this. I reckon it could get delayed but I doubt it'll be for more than a semestre or so.

Best to avoid Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic, it's a travesty in every way. Haven't seen the rest I think, but all I've heard points to them being little better. For the sake of getting more people interested in The Ninth Configuration, here's the scene I watched that made me want to check it out in the first place: