Rostere

My girlfriend patiently sat through like 30 minutes of the "Melissa" album before angrily exclaiming that it sounds just like "a whiny little kid" singing, requesting that I put on some other music. Probably one of the albums I have listened to the most.

Septerra Core is OK with a great setting, but combat becomes very tedious towards the end. IIRC there was some way to minimize random encounters which I didn't understand until I had already finished the game.

I may be misinformed, but I think you're referring to Hamas in Gaza, not Fatah in the West Bank. Fatah may be horribly corrupt, but I don't think they've been brutal. Actually, the truth is that Fatah repeatedly arrest people in the West Bank without formal accusations... When they are believed to be planning terrorist attacks against Israelis.

Sorry for the botched copy/paste in my last post, couldn't see that last part while writing.

Why did you add this? If there is one positive thing that can be said about Obama - regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat - it's that he has increased the standing of the US in the world. Wow, you really have literally no idea of what this is all about, do you? Pretty much this. Obama is like a babysitter to a spoiled and irresponsible child, the Republicans being a creepy relative handing out booze to minors. So funny trying to piece together this. "Well, you know, I WOULD like a two-state solution, but I've also sworn I will never make it happen, because, uh..." Problem, Obama? Lol. This is the truth as long as the intermediator does not wield both a whip and a carrot. Then they will have to make a choice about what is most valuable. Here's an article about the consequences of Netanyahu's victory. A few excerpts: "Ending the Occupation: This is a far more complex issue. For decades, the U.S. could say that Israel and Palestine merely needed to negotiate. One hesitates to explain, yet again, at the risk of boring the reader, that negotiations can only take place between two entities, each of which has something the other wants, that can only be obtained by surrendering something it has. Israel can take whatever it wants from Palestine with complete impunity, granted by the U.S. and condoned by the international community. Why should Israel negotiate? By doing so, it has something to lose, and little to gain. The status quo provides it with nothing to lose and everything to gain." "Negotiations: For many years, the U.S. has prided itself on its efforts to start, restart, sponsor and move forward nonsensical peace talks. U.S. elected officials, when asked about the brutal occupation, could always mouth worthless phrases about ‘returning to the bargaining table’. A new catchphrase will have to be established, but one thinks in vain to find one." "International Law: Will the U.S. now put some pressure on Israel to abide by international law? The U.S. has used its veto power countless times to protect Israel from any consequences of its violations of law. The hypocrisy of doing so is clear. One example is telling. In February of 2011, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in occupied Palestine. In doing so, she said, astonishingly, that while the U.S. sees “the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians”. Since the fairy tale of negotiations has now dissolved, will the U.S. now think that, perhaps, ‘this council’ (U.N. Security Council) is indeed the place to ‘resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians’?" Negotiations: The fact that Mr. Netanyahu never had any intention of negotiating in goodfaith should have been clear, since he continued building illegal settlements as so‐called negotiations continued. The Israeli military never slowed in their brutal oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, never stopped arresting without charge men, women and children, and never stopped protecting the murderous crimes of illegal settlers. What sincerity and ‘good faith’ could possibly attend those actions? Ending the Occupation: This is a far more complex issue. For decades, the U.S. could say that Israel and Palestine merely needed to negotiate. One hesitates to explain, yet again, at the risk of boring the reader, that negotiations can only take place between two entities, each of which has something the other wants, that can only be obtained by surrendering something it has. Israel can take whatever it wants from Palestine with complete impunity, granted by the U.S. and condoned by the international community. Why should Israel negotiate? By doing so, it has something to lose, and little to gain. The status quo provides it with nothing to lose and everything to gain. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-victory-%e2%80%90#sthash.g3AGiUUV.dpuf Negotiations: The fact that Mr. Netanyahu never had any intention of negotiating in goodfaith should have been clear, since he continued building illegal settlements as so‐called negotiations continued. The Israeli military never slowed in their brutal oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, never stopped arresting without charge men, women and children, and never stopped protecting the murderous crimes of illegal settlers. What sincerity and ‘good faith’ could possibly attend those actions? - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-victory-%e2%80%90#sthash.g3AGiUUV.dpuf

Post of the week.

Just play it.

Yeah, and "American money" also pays for your F-35s, MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, and a whole host of other military hardware, Bibi. Like they say, "it's all fun and games until someone loses an election". I think it's safe to say that he actually thought he would lose. Now he's used every tool, ranging from "international conspiracy" to "halp, Arabs!!" and absurdly managed turned his disadvantage around, thus unintentionally showing for the world which politics the electorate really want. This is a taste of the rhetoric which will increasingly openly be used by others than the far-right, who have already started their retrograde course to the 1930s. I fear this is what we will see in the future. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

"Graf" is possibly more close to some mix between viceroy and margrave, considering the colonial aspect.

IMO the North Korean regime is far worse than Israel. They are not exactly comparable. But North Korea is not very interesting to discuss. Everybody knows what they're doing, and they don't really have any Western supporters or apologists. People despise them and they are judged very fairly. Any discussion about North Korea would be very short. There are people who actually believe that Israel is an valuable "ally" of the US, and that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is either justified or a Communist conspiracy theory. There is literally no difference between the thoughts behind this and this. Yet one of them is universally condemned, and one is actively supported by US tax dollars. Wake me up when US donations for construction of North Korean forced labor camps are tax-deductible, or when Republicans are demanding a complete dismantlement of South Korean civilian nuclear program (in spite of the fact that North Korea already has nukes), when the US gives a guarantee to repay any loans North Korea can't pay back, when the US gives North Korea 3 billion dollars a year for weapons which they use to subjugate occupied South Koreans in their ghettos, when the US vetoes all criticism and inquiry into North Korean war crimes, and when the US holds farcical "peace negotiations" while North Korea continuously grabs pieces of South Korea. Then it will be more interesting to discuss North Korea. The current US-Israeli relation is very unhealthy and destructive and must come to an end. Bibi has been very helpful in that regard lately. I'd suspect that they'd go for an agreement not to bring down the government with the Joint List rather than them being formally in government, that would cut down on problems getting other parties to join and is more compatible with what the arabs said prior to the election ie that they wouldn't join a government of any ilk. Even with just an agreement to abstain on confidence/ supply motions it would drop the coalition size required on the left to 54 from 61, assuming the Israeli system does not require absolute majorities on confidence/ supply issues. Yes, that is what I meant when I wrote they would be a minority government. Everybody has known this for some time, really. Bibi's fame started with incitement against Rabin for "collaborating with Arabs". He's been vehemently opposed to any concessions on Israel's part in the past. Suddenly in 2009, he appears to give reluctant support to a two-state solution. It would be very naïve to think that the opinions which he has built his entire career on would have changed sincerely, when it became very convenient for them to do so. And all the time during negotiations, Bibi supporters claimed that he would never make any meaningful concessions to the Palestinians. At this point most US media was sickeningly full of pieces about the peace-loving Bibi who would give Palestinians everything they wanted, if not for the evil, villainous Hamas which is responsible for killing so many with their powerful rockets. Very recently things have turned towards the better, but US media have existed in some kind of parallel bizarro universe with regards to this conflict for far too long. At least with Bibi at the helm, we know US-Israeli relations will only get more healthy. With a leftist regime we would risk being stuck with the same farcical discussions only with a nicer face.

Okay, so exit polls - which should not be given too much credibility - gives us something like this: Build your own fantasy coalition here. The very short summary is that for Netanyahu to continue governing, he will either need a left-right unity government, the support of both centrist parties (Yesh Atid and Kulanu), or the support of both ultra-orthodox parties and one centrist party. For Herzog to form a government, he needs the support of Meretz (that's a given), the Arab parties, and any two of the centrists or the ultra-orthodox. This would then be a minority government. So since the fiercely secular Yesh Atid and the ultra-orthodox won't mix, that leaves us with Kulanu to choose the next government in all possible situations except the one of a left-right unity government. Additionally, this gives us - for us who are interested in the I/P conflict: Left-wing and center (on paper for a Palestinian state, enthusiasm varying): 49 seats (+9) Right-wing and far-right (against a Palestinian state): 40 seats (-3) Far-left + Arabs: 18 seats (+1) Ultra-orthodox religious parties (supports everyone who gives them economic benefits): 13 seats (-5) This is all without Yachad crossing the threshold.

Apparently not. I don't really read comics. It's not that I don't like them, it's just that there is so much else to do.

I remember debating some years ago about whether or not Beeboo was serious about negotiating a two-state solution. Remember the only time there has ever been serious steps forward - under the Rabin government in the early nineties. Boobie held very inflammatory speeches at rallies where there people were burning effigies of Rabin, had images of him hanged and in a SS uniform, et.c.. Lo and behold, a few days later Rabin was shot by a Jewish terrorist. Until his current government he's bragged about killing Oslo, preventing a Palestinian state, and so on. So at the start of his current time in government, when he gave a speech giving reluctant support for a two-state solution (no doubt under pressure from Obama) I was very skeptical towards the idea that he had suddenly had a change of heart. A few years later of farcical "negotiations" covering accelerating land grabs and illegal settlements, and it appears most people have understood this as well. Now if there EVER could be ANY doubt left: "Netanyahu Vows: No Palestianian State if I'm PM" Suddenly, negotiations are no longer about trying to reach, you know, an actual agreement, as he has pretended before. Suddenly, when it's about getting votes, it's all about "standing up to Washington" to continue the Apartheid occupation of the West Bank. Mondoweiss article here. Well. At least that poor, poor, guy Kerry won't have to go through the diplomatic suicide mission of trying to negotiate a two-state agreement with Bibi-sitter ever again. So I guess the good thing that has come out of this is that the charade of negotiations with the Israeli right-wing has ended. And remember, Bibi is the nicest of them. The other guys are people who have been calling for "chopping the heads of Palestinians" in his election campaign, people who believe that equality is suicide, et.c.. These are people who are playing in the same league of asshattery as Golden Dawn and Jobbik. Either that, or an icosahedron. BTW, where is your awesome avatar from?

Updated my journal.

Well, as long as the weapon is light enough (and solely intended for use with one hand) it makes sense to have some other, light weapon in your off-hand. But as we enter thea area of heavier weapons - which all weapons except the small daggers used at zero distance are in an armoured fight - you will direly need the balance afforded by not having a heavy weapon in your second hand. And that's not mentioning shields. The fact remains that dual-wielding (the following in D&D terminology) long swords, bastard swords, morning stars, war hammers, maces, clubs, axes and scimitars makes little sense, except if you are monstrously strong and heavy (for balance) of course. But then you could just as well dual wield two-handed swords and halberds as well, if you are strong enough. IMO strength should restrict dual wielding, and the restrictions should be much harsher than what we commonly see in games today to avoid the kind of Axe Cop-level cheese you are seeing with regards to dual wielding. Normal humans should only ever be able to effectively dual wield light thrusting weapons, daggers and similar. If we continue down the current road we might as well have characters fix swords to their feet so they can stab their enemies with four blades instead of only two. Melon hammers were typically used in pairs. Ha ha ha. Forgive me if I laugh, but... I guess there is a reason you call it martial arts. What the heck? I guess "melon" refers to the colossal amount of empty space inside the head of the weapon? Okay, this guy's dual hammers looks more like an actual weapon. However, with so short hammers they will both be very lacking for parrying and lacking the momentum of serious, longer maces. My bet is that the fact that the centre of mass lies close to the hand makes the technique somewhat similar to fist fighting, that being the rationale for using such an odd weapon.

Like you say, a style used in dueling (when you have pre-arranged rules). Not in a valetudinarian military context, nor in group battles. Skirmishing =/= pitched warfare. There is a great deal of space in between duels and formation fighting alongside hundreds or thousands of others. Certainly. But my point was mainly that dueling features pre-arranged rules. A foil is not a weapon used in serious warfare and it was never meant to be one. So the fact that people have fought with two foils does not prove anything about the value of using foils, or two foils, to actually kill people effectively. Full disclosure: I was fencing with foils for about 5 years, several days every week. Such a light weapon as a foil WOULD be usable with one in both hands, but it is a bad example since such light piercing weapons are very rarely used in serious combat (as main weapons). IMO I would probably choose to have something like this in my second hand however: And that would be useful primarily for defensive purposes and for close-up stabbing. Anything much larger than that, and it would start having an impact your mobility. What would kill you in foil fencing is the power behind the thrust of the foil, which is gained by pushing your entire body forward with your rear leg. There is little offensive use of two foils in this instance. The problem becomes even worse with heavier, slashing weapons with which you use your entire body to swing and balance. Having a heavy off-hand weapon would be not be of any use there. Think about a typical medieval arming sword (which is pretty heavy if you have ever held one): Little use in dual-wielding those. Especially against armour: it is the heavy, accurate, crippling blow (or thrust...) which does damage - any lighter blows are going to just bounce off. And don't even get me started about these. Why, of course. PoE seems to be set in a place which is mostly inspired by Europe in terms of weaponry and culture. So considering the setting, what we consider exotic Asian styles of martial arts is likely exotic also in PoE.

Like you say, a style used in dueling (when you have pre-arranged rules). Not in a valetudinarian military context, nor in group battles. Goes under "experts of exotic fighting styles". If you train enough, I'm sure you can learn how to kill a man with chopsticks in 3 seconds. Penalizing people for stupid choices is 50% of what a game is all about (the other half is rewards). Sadly this game does not have a critical miss system similar to Arcanum, but if it had, giving two flails to an untrained character would drastically increase their chance of dropping their pants, accidentally blinding themselves, and throwing their weapon in a random direction. Fighting effectively with two weapons normally designed for one-hand or two-hand use, if you are not ambidextrous, is extremely hard and should be reflected as such.

Dual wielding is not a realistic way of fighting, unless your second weapon is a short dagger/sword. Try holding a heavy weapon and you will understand. It should be reserved for experts of exotic fighting styles. The thought that there is no penalty for untrained characters dual wielding is crazy.

I've thought about this a lot as well. The setting is a huge part of what makes a game great for me. PoE's setting thus far is only looking better and better. In the end, making a setting is about introducing new concepts (such as souls in PoE, world geography, et.c.) and make these consistent with science as we know it. Arcanum is a perfect example of this. Make an interesting new concept: "What if a fantasy world would eventually go through the industrial revolution?" and then draw logical conclusions. Tolkien famously worked mostly with linguistics, and with Finnic and Northern Germanic folklore. It's easy to criticize him afterwards when "fantasy" has become an established genre, although his attention to every separate language is superb, there are other things which could have been more fleshed out, and more potential sources of inspiration. The best person to construct a setting is probably a person who obsessively reads both history, linguistics, and anthropology. The joy of exploring a truly well-crafted consistent invented world can thus approach the joy it would be to discover hitherto lost civilizations in the real world.

Unlike many other drugs which gives you "ups" when you take them and withdrawal symptoms when you don't, LSD just shapes your perception of reality. Drugs such as cocaine, alcohol, nicotine et.c. are chemically addictive and thus fall in an entirely different category. That said, it's of course possible to hurt yourself and others in many ways when on LSD. But that's not a direct effect of the drug.

Correct. Theoretically speaking, they might already have had enough enriched uranium to build a bomb, but not a practical one. But as you understand, if Netanyahu were to state that "Okay. Now they have everything they need for a bomb. I'm expecting them to build a bomb and use it any minute!", and then nothing would happen, it would completely expose his tendency to cry wolf. So it's crucial for his argument that Iran is perpetually always going to get nuclear weapons "soon". If it's "now", then he will be exposed as a liar. If it's "in 10 years", it's not urgent enough to gain attention. He's been saying that Iran is about to get nuclear weapons in the next few years since the early nineties. Then what is a reliable source? Al Jazeera is cautiously anti-Iran. 20% uranium-235 is an ingredient for making the fuel for certain reactors (for example the ones typically used in nuclear subs). It does have a legitimate civilian use in the making of certain medical isotopes, but I do remember thinking that the amount they had was a bit much. Not absurdly much, but still. I don't really have the time on my hands to approximate exactly how much use Iran has for it, but anyway. Al Jazeera was actually the first Arab media to invite Israeli representatives to TV debates, and feature IDF commentary on Israeli military operations. Al Jazeera was very keen to always have an IDF spokesman reply to any criticism during Cast Lead. Journalistically speaking, that's far better than most US TV channels - it's impossible to dispute. Wake me up when CNN has a Palestinian to comment on all reporting whenever Gaza is bombed, and Palestinians on all panels on the I/P conflict. They have been wrong before, but it's the best we've got. Random keyboard warriors on the Internet with zero knowledge of either nuclear physics or Iranian internal politics will not make more accurate assessments . You're treading on very thin ice with that track record argument. IMO the threat in Iran is not from the clerical establishment (who has both dismantled an existing nuclear weapons program inherited from the Shah, and stated that nuclear weapons use by Iran is forbidden by Islam) but the nationalist Basji organization. US efforts should focus on minimizing their influence and standing in Iranian society through cultural means. Ahmadinejad's voters were to a larger degree hardliners compared to Rouhani's. You have got to understand, that for the Iranian hardliners, the fact that the US does not want Iran to enrich uranium is reason to do in itself. If Iran can poke the US in the eye, that is a home-run with parts of Iranian voters.

He is probably wrong to blame "Scandinavians", but what you say is true. IIRC Sweden provided something like 60% of ANCs entire income during the 80s, and an even larger percentage of Mugabe's ZANU before independence, and smaller amounts also to SWAPO in Namibia, all during the Social Democratic periods of power. At that time Sweden had an incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. Providing some context to this, southern Africa was the most common destination for Swedish missionaries during the mid-20th century, and the Swedish church is, and was, very tightly tied to the Social Democratic party. Missionaries would then come home and tell of experiences of racism and inequality. This really shaped Swedish views of the world, and there was a high degree of awareness especially about conditions in southern African colonies. However, there was also support for lots of other liberation movements such as PLO and POLISARIO. These policies can be tied in part personally to Olof Palme (sadly assassinated), who certainly left a very interesting legacy, foreign-policy wise. He consistently denounced and actively worked against imperialism, both Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in Africa. However, he also had no qualms about friendship with very authoritarian leftist regimes as long as they were independent (i.e., not direct puppets of SU). Palme's worldview was shared in part by the Swedish FN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld (sadly assassinated), who in spite of being staunchly conservative in domestic politics thought that self-rule always trumps the interests of the superpowers. The aggressive financial support was ended with the right-wing government of the early nineties. With the return of the Social Democrats to power, much of the rhetoric remained though. The most outspoken politician was Anna Lindh, sadly assassinated before she could assume leadership of the Social Democratic party. And now after another period of right-wing government, we have another outspoken female foreign minister (Margot Wallström) who seems hell-bent to shake things up. Sweden has already been the first Western EU country to recognize Palestine. Following this, Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Stockholm only to be given lengthy lectures about feminism, and being pressured to make commitments about the role of women in government and civic society . Afterwards, Wallström was invited as an honorary guest to the Arab League's next meeting, and was set to hold a speech about feminism and human rights. This was predictably shot down by Saudi Arabia, after which Sweden immediately cancelled military exports to Saudi Arabia on human rights grounds, providing a model for other countries to do so as well. Current Swedish foreign politics suddenly got their popcornworthiness turned up to 11. So it might not be THAT crazy that Netanyahu accuses Sweden of meddling. History supports it, hell, Swedes like Count Folke Bernadotte (sadly assassinated) did that even before the foundation of the state of Israel.

Okay. Now that Netanyahu's speech to Congress has sunk in, he's lost a lot of ground in Israeli opinion polls. His response? Blame "Scandinavians". No. I am seriously not joking.

Bounty Hunter is the worst class for cheesing. So much cheese.