Pop

Hanging out in the future, apparently.

Hooray for the Microsoft troubleshooting method! The Witcher gets its very own Service Pack 2. Too bad they can't fix the monotony.* *But at least they made dice poker more fun!

There are still people around who miss 2e? Jesus.

Joystiq's been fapping about PS3 Home's "protein folding" function for awhile now.

Where did you get that idea? It could be like Gears of War, where your computer allies are more or less useless, but they were also invincible (at least, that's how I remember them being) and reviving is only a part of multiplayer. Or it could be a largely solo game with teammates only in certain parts of the game in which they're not easily killed ala AVP2, with multiplayer changing the dynamics of the game a bit.

Sure, I suppose. I don't really think that RP is representative of the traditional libertarian platform. But I do think his type of libertarian, the kind that's only libertarian in its desire for small gov't., has a chance of coming into prominence in the future. Depends on if his supporters drop his ideology after he inevitably loses or soldier on into 2012. Anyway, McCain: Torture should be illegal, except when it isn't illegal. Ah, the making of a Republican candidate for President.

How does a judge always get people to obey his orders? They have the stubborn one sit in a jail cell until his lawyers can appeal him out, which can take months, if not years, and only if his lawyers are good enough to get the appeal approved.

Presumably a laptop can be considered the same way a filing cabinet in an office might be considered. A judge in good standing can order a search of a filing cabinet if there's sufficient reason to suspect that illegal materials are contained within it. Refusal to cooperate with said order leads to penalization. Giving up a password is no different than giving up a key. It's not really an admission of guilt, exactly, but it's pretty damning all the same. One assumes the porn didn't show up on its own. Still, the fifth amendment can't protect a person from being linked to a crime by the state via evidence obtained through legal investigation, which can extend into one's private life. It does, however, give him the opportunity to refuse to answer when they ask "is this your laptop?" or "did you download this?". It won't help him, of course. You don't need a confession to convict someone of a crime. He's still ****ed, but he's still got that right not to provide testimony that incriminates himself. As for the slippery slope, we can dismiss it. Any reasonable person can conclude that the investigation of illegal child exploitation is not a necessary cause for investigation of non-illegal activities such that we should discourage child porn busts just in case the New World Order needs an excuse to monitor the type of toilet paper you buy at the supermarket. Some might consider prosecution of child pornography "thought policing", but these people are not intelligent and we can ignore them.

You people have either been living under rocks for a number of months and have never played MOTB or you have ****ty computers. Or both

A reporter from the New Republic found a dearth of up-to-that-point unreleased newsletters in the archives of a midwestern University library, most of which contained no byline but all of which claimed Ron Paul's name in the official title of the newsletter. The newsletters were published over a period of nearly 30 years, and contain a veritable bounty of crazy bull****. While Paul could have probably have removed himself from responsibility if it was a briefly published rag, the fact that it went on for so long seems to suggest that either he knew what was being written or didn't have the gumption to stop others from grossly misrepresenting him over a long period of time. The most infamous one is the first one presented, which Paul or Paul's surrogate wrote in the wake of the Rodney King riots. As for the neo-nazi contribution, well there it is. It's an old, standard tradition to sell photo ops with candidates, of course, but these purchasers, Don and Derek Black, happened to be the owners and proprieters of Stormfront, probably the most popular white power forum on the web. The donation's a matter of public record, so if you looked up "Don Black West Palm Beach Florida Website Manager" in whatever gov't agency database keeps track of that stuff (I can't remember right now) you'll see it. The RP folk came out and said they weren't aware of the Blacks' occupation, although curiously, a glowing portrait in the National Review by Tucker Carlson pointed out how proactive the Paul camp was in escorting people away from their man when confronted with Vegas sex workers. You'd think they'd know their stuff. The RP campaign was called upon to give up the money and they refused, which is their right, but it's not exactly a testament to their scruples. The one thing you can say about the RP campaign is that it was never, ever hurting for cash. you seem to believe that the republican party is racist. Why then does a man like Ron Paul get zero traction with rank and file republicans? Why is nobody, and i mean NOBODY in the repub party supporting him? Not a single endorsement, less than 2% of just the republican vote and you and I have already agreed his following is something of a kook fringe not really representative of either the repub or lib parties. Maybe because the republican party is not racist at all. And when a repub does pop up like Henry Hyde or David Duke who utter bad things in public that DO show up in credible news sources they are quickly shown the door. That's not what this is about at all. I'm sort of surprised you've never run into Paulies before. See, Ron Paul is opposed to collective action, so he encourages his supporters to spread the word as individuals. This support manifests itself in a number of ways, some of which are creative but illegal, like the Ron Paul Liberty Dollar Coin, and some of which are spectacular and incredibly wasteful, like the Ron Paul blimp, but the vast, vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are internet missionaries, the ever-present tie-wearing mormons of politics. Digg and other finger-on-the-pulse sites were constantly being barraged by artificially inflated RP stories for a couple of months. Obsidian is actually the only forum I've been to that hasn't had a deluge of Paulies (or "Paultards" as they're less politely called). The RP forums have a number of tips and ideas for effective proselytization. One of the more popular tactics is to place the title of Dr. in front of Paul's name, lending it authority (any Paultard will tell you that Doctor Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies in his medical career and thus is best fit to lead the country) Imagine an environmentalist poster who takes every opportunity to talk about An Inconvenient Truth, but makes sure to place the words "Oscar-winning Vice President" before every mention of Al Gore's name. You can see how tiring it could get.

I don't know why you'd say that RP isn't conservative. He sponsored a bill that would've defined an embryo as a child, he voted for both the Defense of Marriage Act and a bill that would've protected said act from judicial scrutiny, all of which are completely backwards from a libertarian standpoint. He's a certain type of libertarian, but it's an older and less cuddly kind of libertarian, the kind that would naturally feel at home in the Republican Party. I had a link to a vlog in which a Cato Institute member explains it, I'll dig it upHere it be!. Of course every party has a fringe. What matters is how a candidate interacts with that fringe. Dem candidates rarely if ever court or address the socialists directly. If money was donated to their campaigns from a fringe, given the severity of the views of the giving group they'd give the money back or give it to charity, if they were smart about it. RP has directly accepted and used money from neo-nazis even when confronted about it (the official line is that he "accepted the money so that it can be used against the donor's interests", which doesn't seem very logical). When asked by Tim Russert on national television about the Civil War he said it was completely immoral and that the North ought to have bought all the slaves from the South instead of going to war, which was either a poorly-thought out evasion of the question which has an obvious and easy answer, or a revelation of Paul's lack of basic economic sense. The problem with slavery wasn't just that people owned slaves, it was that there was a demand for slaves. Buying them all wouldn't eliminate that demand. Add to that keynote speeches at secessionist conferences and you get an idea of where Paul's head is at. That's not even getting into the infamous newsletters that called MLK Jr. a gay paedophile (and despite what history would tell you, it was the civil rights activists who were the real racists, which is a remarkably common sentiment among rank-and-file libertarians. Civil Rights movements = collectivism, after all) and warned of the Trilateral Commission and the UN plotting world domination. I wouldn't draw much distinction between a socialist state that would dissolve free elections and private property and a libertarian state that would atrophy the state to the point of inconsequence and replace the workings of government with the bustle of the marketplace. Both are equally harmful to the public good and the average standard of living. But you knew that I felt that way already. I don't place any stock whatsoever in voluntarism or the invisible self-correcting mechanisms of the market. The state exists to prevent malignant self-interest of motivated individuals from running rampant. You don't necessarily need a short leash, but you need a leash. I can see that such an arrangement is harmful, but I don't have to look to a constitution to arrive at that conclusion. Constructionism is akin to fundamentalism. Believing that a founding document drafted hundreds of years ago is the complete and unchangeable guide to how a society should function forever is no different from believing that a 2,000 year old novel is, to the exclusion of all else, the book of answers to every single question about how one should live and think about the world today. Ron Paul has such a belief. Indeed, his staunch opposition to the 13th amendment to the constitution, the one that guaranteed black men the right to vote and ensured that the children of immigrants were to be considered Americans under the law, is that which makes him so popular among white supremacists. But the Paul candidacy would seem to indicate that either such beliefs are incredibly strong motivating factors, or that young libertarians that are so attracted to his candidacy are willing to take whatever they can get (or they're just ignorant of their candidate's positions). I'm willing to consider that the great majority of Ron Paul supporters aren't the "real libertarians" you talk about but rather young conservatives who have turned to libertarian persuasions more out of a disaffected reaction to the dominance of the Christian Right among the Republican Party than anything else. Thus they might have rudimentary libertarian sentiments but at their core they're still primarily traditional conservative Republicans who would believe that, for example, after abolishing federal protection of abortion rights states will naturally slide towards prohibition on their own, thus winning the abortion war without any actual government intervention. I just pulled that date out of thin air. Maybe I should have gone post-Great War.

How isn't it fair? I'm no expert, but I'd assume that all things considered hammering out an FPS is a whole lot easier than hammering out an RPG. Hence, we hear about the FPS first. Obsidian will talk when they're good and ready. Wait a few months.

http://www.mediafire.com/?9ey5vmnd8yn

I think you're all ignoring the real story here. My Pony & Me 2.

ron's really the closest thing to a "third party" candidate with any real presence in recent times... granted, he's running on a republican ticket, but he ain't a republican. he's got no real hope at winning the republican nomination, either, but his numbers are high enough to at least get the publicity libertarians need for future efforts (assuming he lives long enough he could attempt a run in the next election... he's 73 now). taks Come on now, I'm betting I'm a lot younger than you are, and I still remember Ross Perot, who had much more support than RP has now. And the Honorable Doctor General Grand Master Dragon President Ron Paul is most certainly a conservative republican activist, if the National Review editorial board is any litmus test for that sort of thing. The only real way he breaks from traditional principles is his anti-war stance, but even that is less anti-war than it is anti-internationalist, and in that he's really just a conservative Republican circa 1911. Actually, most of the urbane, Economist-reading libertarians that I know are frantic about this whole RP deal. They reckon a gold / conspiracy nut who wants to back an $11 trillion economy on a commodity whose global sum total doesn't reach that worth and has a record of racialist rhetoric, confederate apologism and white nationalist advocacy occupying and representing the libertarian vanguard sets the movement back 50 years. Personally I couldn't be happier. Free market politics being in a death-like slumber on the edge of the national stage for the rest of my lifetime suits me just fine. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that young libertarians carry on Paul's easily defeatable message into the future.

I'd say that Obama has a best chance of any democrat running over the last 50 years at least to take the South. The very fact that he's churchgoing will mobilize a large bloc of black voters, the kind of voters you'd only get if you were a republican. The black vote is quite sizable in a number of southern red states. And the hispanic community looks to be coming around as well, at least in those places outside city centers where there aren't hispanic elected officials who would throw their lot in with Clinton and deliver their supporters. Point taken on local elections. It always seemed strange that there was a national libertarian party, you'd think they'd lose for the same reasons the socialists lose: They angle for a position in government so they can destroy it.

This week - Simcity Societies

Read 'er here. Looks like the speculation about the MMO not being KOTOR were correct.

it's a really interesting idea. A shame in some ways that you can't have coalition presidencies. I sometimes think half the problem is being 100% one way or another. But I wouldn't have even thought of putting it this way. No, it's not a shame. To people who have no understanding of politics, bipartisan presidencies are a great idea, because as far as they're concerned "democrat" and "republican" are clear-cut and distinctive groups. But they're not. The most plausible bipartisan ticket would probably be John McCain / Joe Lieberman. Certain substance-free movements might look upon such a ticket as a major step forward, because it's a dem and a rep running side-by-side. What they fail to see is that it's really just two conservatives running. Any and every viable bipartisan ticket will be like this. Party affiliations are essentially meaningless, and thus "bipartisanship" is essentially meaningless. No. No no no no. Take a civics class. We don't have a two-party system because people are stubborn, we have a two-party system because elections in America are First-Past-The-Post races. Meaning, a candidate who receives 49% of the total votes gets absolutely nothing even though he only lost by a percentage point. Winners are the winners. Not everybody gets a trophy. Third parties don't work in this system, in most cases they don't even function on the local or state levels. Hence we have a democratic party that consists of all stripes of liberals, from greens to socialists to pacifists, and a republican party that consists of all stripes of conservatives, from corporatist libertarians to fundamentalists to foreign policy hawks. The thing is, by and large, the people in these parties are smart enough to realize that splitting up gets them nowhere at all. Only activists join third parties. Far right wingnuts hate McCain and establishment dems don't like Obama. They'll bicker up until the point at which the race actually begins before falling into lockstep, because winning now is what matters. The alternative is a parliamentary proportional system. We'll probably never adopt such a system. Besides, we'd end up more like Italy than Denmark. He probably won't. But then, Hillary will have to win TX, OH, and PA by 63% to break even with Obama on the numbers, and that's counting in projected superdelegates. The superdelegates favor Hillary, but if it's perceived that Obama is going places Hillary won't get to, they might swing his way. If it comes down to Florida and Michigan, it's going to get ugly. If those states hold their ground, Hillary gets the nomination but not legitimacy. "Electability" is the watchword here. Fringe candidates appeal to the young and to activists, but the old and comfortable are the ones who show up to the polls. Obama trails Hillary amongst working class folk, an endorsement from John Edwards and the possibility of his being second on the ticket would help him. Either candidate needs an old white man riding shotgun. That's politics. I'm not really convinced by Obama. I know a lot of smart people who support him for stupid and / or nonexistent reasons, and contrary to the belief of many a foreign acquaintance, the young and the "independent" and even republicans will vote for him simply because he's black and really, who doesn't want to be able to say that they voted a black man into the white house not 40 years past the age of lynching? Still, having to rely on nebulous goodwill in an election is better than having to fight nebulous antipathy. A great number of people don't like Hillary for no good reason at all. And if there are two things to remember, one is that nothing is a lock, and the other is that people are fickle. In 2004 we had a gigantic ****up of a president and a war hero challenger to the throne, who still lost, for three reasons. The biggest one is that nobody could picture themselves having a beer and watching the game with Kerry, while Bush was still a good old boy. The second was that he wasn't able to respond to mudslinging in an acceptable manner. The third was that even though the war wasn't exactly popular, the rule of thumb said wartime presidents deserve unconditional support (also: USA USA USA, etc.) I believe McCain can make people who really should know better accept his hawkishness with minimal effort and pick up the Presidency through sheer machismo.

Who's doing the porting? Is EA shouldering the burden, or does Bioware have a team on it? As if they didn't have enough on their plate already.

Prediction: Warren Spector will never get anything done ever.

In 2004 Dem turnout for the caucuses was around 15,000. This year it was 150,000. Had it been a primary we might have gotten 4 or 5 times that. We went for Obama.

That's the way it worked in GRAW. You could be hit 3 times. The more automatic fire that was shot at you (depending on the difficulty, cover, etc.) the greater the chance of one of those bullets actually hitting you.

Are you suggesting that STALKER had a narrative?