Rostere

Breaking: Netanyahu to undergo emergency surgery: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013810232627213491.html Look at all the wars which has been fought throughout history. Let's take WW2 as an example. Germany and France were on opposing sides, they fought, made peace, none of the countries was exterminated and borders did not change significantly in the end, yet they are allies today and none of the issues they had between themselves exist now. I'd say, peace is achieved when two sides find the tolerance and intellectual maturity required to coöperate instead of creating conflict. I would not be so certain. Keep in mind the differences between Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza is under crazy tight control from an international perspective, the West Bank even more so. Can you imagine a country criss-crossed by walls, barbed wire and checkpoints, sniper towers with searchlights, overflown by drones 24/7. Even going a few kilometres can entail several strip searches if you have said the wrong words on the phone. Most stuff you could even remotely create a weapon with is forbidden (although Israel is often more strict with construction materials). It should be telling that Israel, despite it's size, is the world's next largest exporter of UAVs, and they look poised to snatch the first place from their arch-rivals in the UAV market, the US. This success has party been attributed to the frequency Israel gets to test it's UAVs live in Gaza. Indeed, other equipment related to the occupation makes up a large part of Israel's military exports which sadly possibly has helped several repressive regimes in their own efforts, for example the riot control equipment sold to Zimbabwe. Hamas is having a hard time killing even one Israeli from the Gaza Strip. They could achieve even less from the West Bank. Israel has created the perfect military occupation in the West Bank and I don't think Hamas will be able to make as much as a scratch on Israel from there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHs96yVwMo "I don't oppose Islam as a country, but..." "Jews have their own religion, which follows Jesus Christ" Where do they find these complete idiots? I suggest they make her redo primary school.

Wouldn't you think it a better idea then if Obama put pressure on the Israelis so that they suddenly had something to lose, and pushed for more frequent elections on the Palestinian side? What's the point in pushing Israel when the Palestinians have no intention of negotiating true peace? http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3908/ramallah-peace-process And the last time we pushed for Palestinian elections, we got Hamas. Btw, Israel is so evil they're providing medical treatment to the enemy for free : http://news.yahoo.com/syrians-brave-risks-seek-treatment-israel-155233310.html I'm not trying to say Israelis are evil. In fact, the most serious movements for peace originate from within Israel. I don't know the numbers now (things might have changed), but I remember reading that Hamas would overtake Fatah if an election was held at some point before this summer. But I believe that is what you will have to deal with in a democracy. Hamas wouldn't be able to do any shenanigans in the West Bank anyway, it's under such tight control. Yes, a lot of Palestinians don't want any peace, but a lot of Israeli Jews don't want peace either. In Palestine, these nationalist movement are first and foremost Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In Israel, they are represented by the Jewish Home party and also the remains of the former Israel Our Home party which was merged with Likud, and now may or may not constitute a majority of that party. Both these parties are in the current Israeli government, so it's really ironic that the Obama administration has chosen the current time for peace negotiations. There are of course a lot of interesting articles speculating on why Netanyahu is doing this and how he thinks he will succeed. Here's one stating that: "Netanyahu’s dilemma: Only about 45 or 50 current members of the 120-member Knesset would vote against a two-state peace agreement, but 35 or 40 of them are in his current 68-seat coalition. A peace accord could easily win a vote on the Knesset floor, but it’s not clear it could get through the coalition to reach the floor." Even that is a bit optimistic. It is likely that almost every MK who would vote against a permanent peace treaty is within his own coalition. At the moment I can't find another article with a short interview with a Jewish Home MK who say that Netanyahu DEFINITELY does not have a majority in his government for the creation of a Palestinian state, and likely does not have one in his party. So if Netanyahu in spite of what he tells the Israeli public at elections is sincere in these efforts, I would change my bet: the talks will crumble when Netanyahu is forced to leave his own party. Then it's likely that a nationalist will take his place, and who knows what will happen. These folks make no efforts to hide their racism or openly suggest ethnic cleansing so I imagine it will be a shock to the international community.

That's possible, considering that the USSR was Israel's original BFF, while the US was slightly sceptical. But all that changed pretty quickly, as we all know.

Wouldn't you think it a better idea then if Obama put pressure on the Israelis so that they suddenly had something to lose, and pushed for more frequent elections on the Palestinian side? Secondly, the Palestinians (as in "any Palestinian organization") would have no additional psychological reason to "retaliate" after negotiations fail (on the other hand Fatah would lose even more support, which inevitably means people will support Hamas instead, because they are currently the only other big political party over there). Hamas in turn would not have any additional reason to fight Israel more than they already have, since they don't support these negotiations to begin with. So any fight which would occur in the immidiate aftermath of the talks would probably take place between Hamas supporters and Fatah in the West Bank. Of course this would leave Israel more vulnerable, but security in the West Bank is already so tight I don't think there's anything people over there can do. In short: the people who want to fight don't care about these negotiations to begin with, and those who want a solution through these talks are the "peaceniks" who don't believe in a violent solution. Your statement is like saying Amnesty would assassinate Obama over the delays in phasing out Guantanamo. Certainly Al-Qaeda would if they could, but they are not likely to care about these delays to begin with. (Then again, Hamas is losing power in Gaza to the Iran-influced Islamic Jihad)

Yes, we would definitely need a "messiah" in the current situation. Short-term things look worse than ever, although long-term I'm getting some hope. Maybe we should also accept that we can't solve any tough problem instantaneously. If the people in the region take ever so small steps in the right direction, maybe a "union" solution will appear possible in another 10 years? But that's a very big difference.Few hundreds years of colonization are ways apart from ethnic cleansing. I don't see a future one state working without one side subjugating the other. You could also make the argument that hundred years of colonization is worse that recent ethnic cleansing. I'm sure there has occured something similar to that at some point in SA history as well. Only about 100 years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side by side in Jerusalem. Is it that naïve to believe they can do so again? Neither Judaism, Christianity or Islam has changed since then. Eventually old grievances are forgotten, it's a pity people can't forget them quicker and get on with what should be their economic priorities. The current situation is a nightmare. That is because this far, people have chosen to emphasize conflict and division over reconciliation. Even in the so-called peace talks they are essentially just drawing trenchlines-to-be, when they should work towards destroying the borders and breaking the walls. It's not surprising that the stronger side (Israel) squeezes the other side relentlessly under it's thumb. And as long as Palestinians elect leaders such as the corrupt Fatah or the quixotic and chaotic stupid Hamas, they are just prolonging the conflict. I'm glad I'm not in charge of this either. Other than the fact that I would surely not manage to accomplish anything, I would probably be shot by one side or the other as well. A single state would seem impossible to accomplish today, but imagine the rewards - Israel/Palestine would quickly become the number one tourist destination in the world if only Muslims, Christians and Jews alike could all move freely, visit historical and religious places and go to the beach together afterwards. With no hostile relation to neighbouring nations, Israeli companies could use Israeli Palestinians fluent in Arabic to establish a foothold in all surrounding regional markets. If they're quick enough, Israel could slip into the EU before Turkey and be the hub between Asia, Africa and Europe. The are great possibilities for that little strip of land, but of course with great possibilities also comes great obstacles, as always. It's a pity people over there only see short-sighted goals such as "we want a JEWISH nation", "we want an ISLAMIC nation" and so on. They whack their heads together over immaterial and irrelevant ideas and I bet they haven't even thought a second about the economic possibilities of a union.

You see, I think the two-state solution is the precise reason the talks are doomed to fail. Imagine South Africa in the mid-80s, except most of the black SA inhabitants don't live intermingled with the white ones. They live walled-up and are forbidden to build anything without a permit, which essentially means the SA army will come and bulldozer 90% of what they build down. They can in general not leave these ghettos, except if they emigrate to a "black" country. The SA government only allows the most basic of products through, so technology and medicine are mostly smuggled. Every now and then the walls close in on the black SA populace as more space is allocated to white settlements, who of course claim the country was granted them directly from God. Criticism is often deflected with "we're the only democracy in the region" - ignoring the black South Africans in the ghettos who only get to vote for their own police. Also, you get to hear a lot of "blacks have it better here than in the neighbouring countries" - referring to the few who live beside the white South Africans. In many ways, the scenario in Israel/Palestine is even more entangled than Apartheid SA. The difference between SA and Israel/Palestine is that SA resolved - in one of the most significant victories of democracy in the 20th century (if not ever) - to live side by side in a single democracy, with equal rights. Increasingly, I'm getting the feeling that this is what needs to happen in Israel/Palestine as well. The future lies with unity, not with division. I'm completely convinced that if the Israelis and Palestinians would completely put aside their differences and join in a single state (which seems lightyears away today, unfortunately) the economy and international prestige of their country would be shooting through the roof. So compare the two-state solution to if Bush would have tried to convince ANC and De Klerk to a peaceful solution by evacuating black South Africans to certain reservations, primarily characterized by being what land was left when the whites had settled where they wanted. (Or to be really clear to those of you who are not BruceVC or with some knowledge of SA history, this is what the two-state solution would have looked like in SA) Bantustans and two-state solutions is not the way forward for democracy. When I see Israel and Palestine, I see one nation with one future.

That's basically what I said as well, but if you would like any creds™ for your prediction maybe you should be more specific in how these talks will fail to accomplish anything?

I've also heard that it's quite disappointing. You better save those 3 quid for a beer.

If you all have been following news recently, you will have noticed that the US has been trying to resume talks on a two-state solution. That means that at the same time, a lot of stuff is happening and a lot of stuff will likely not be happening at all. Israel has offered to release a bunch of prisoners, while at the same time increasing government subsidies to several illegal settlements (likely as a quid-pro-quo aimed at the extreme-right parties in government). Technically Israel promised to release these prisoners already in the Oslo accords, so however pointless the release of less than a hundred prisoners might seem to the process, it was basically a prerequisite for talks so that the Palestinian leaders can still uphold the self-deception that they have any real power at all. I'm sure the Palestinian leaders in Fatah would be keen to reach an agreement themselves, but the people in both Gaza and the West Bank have become wary and sceptical of any "peace process", and Fatah has become increasingly unpopular. It's almost certain the current West Bank leadership would be voted out of office if elections were held. The longer these discussions take place, the more support Fatah will lose among the people. Thus commences a kind of chicken race in front of the international community where neither part wants to reach an agreement, but both sides want the other to derail the negotiations in order to look good themselves. It's unthinkable that the US would ever touch the fat aid packages to Israel or in general use the "stick" instead of the "carrot" and the status quo is currently ideal for the Israeli right-wing government, so in contrast to the Palestinians the Israelis could reasonably let the negotiations go on indefinitely. So my bet is that discussions will drag on for a long time, and will end with the Palestinian leadership either voluntarily resigning or being forced down by protests (if Kerry does not give up first!). In the eventual, unlikely case of an agreement, it will have two prime characteristics: 1. Concrete changes are scheduled to take place in years from now and 2. The Palestinians make a very firm commitment not to involve the international community in any way. What do you think will happen? Let's place our bets and see who is the most professional political prognosticator on the Obsidian forum.

If I'm allowed to branch out a bit without going entirely off topic, what do you all think about Namibia? They seem to be doing rather well. According to Wikipedia, Bloomberg lists Namibia as the top emerging market economy in Africa. They score high on the Press Freedom index, highest in Africa and globally just slightly above Canada and Belgium. Civil liberties and political rights seem to be doing fairly well. In which ways can Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana be compared?

Chris Avellone should do more "Let's Play"s of different games. Why don't you start a kickstarter for him to simply do LPs of more games On a more serious note, you should consider the size of the stones in the paved sections of the dungeon. They appear just a bit too large to have been part of an effective construction effort. That is also one huge-ass door.

I watched the video from TheBadComedian and although it's blatantly obvious he is indeed a very bad comedian, he has a lot of valid points. I haven't played it myself, but it seems CoH2 is roughly equal to a game about WW2 from a British perspective which only features planning an invasion of Narvik, bombing civilians in Germany to smithereens and sending underequipped colonial troops to their death. He showed some points of the game which were definitely ahistorical, and more which were decidedly mendacious. Especially the misplaced Vasilevsky quote made me cringe. One point he tried to make against the game which I don't agree on was the summary execution of Polish partisans with an implied conservative political allegiance. I am absolutely certain that the Soviet Union would do anything in their power to eliminate counter-revolutionary guerillas in own as well as occupied lands. Furthermore, Soviet penal battalions were probably very awful, unlike what he says in the video.

I definitely believe Fargo. The only thing I'm afraid of is that he rushes the game out. I want them to really take their time with it.

Baldur's Gate (especially 1) and Planescape: Torment both had very well made characters. The characters in BG were very zany and you would always be listening carefully to what they had to say. Torment had very well thought-out characters in general. I like that in a game.

Oh, and by the way Bill Gates has just invested in thorium as well: http://www.itheo.org/bill-gates-invests-thorium-capable-reactor-venture "Gates told the audience that the technology could power the [...] U.S. for 100 years, using just the spent fuel rods already in its possession." The thorium nuclear energy conference TEAC2 is also apparently due to be hosted by Google, who also closely follow the development of thorium energy. It feels great that the time for thorium nuclear power is finally due, considering the Cold War tensions which made a great environment for uranium nuclear reactors due to the shared industry and infrastructure with the nuclear weapons industry.

Haha, I must say I really enjoy Chris's Arcanum playthrough...

Interesting indeed!

The only place I've ever seen anyone say that game had good controls was here; pretty much any other forum not loaded with Obsidian fanboys agrees the controls are a **** show unless you use a gamepad (which is idiotic for a Diablo clone). I didn't say the controls were "good", just that they were not awful. And yes, in fact I happen to own the game for both the PC and the 360 so I've also been able to compare. But then again, I also played Psychonauts, RE4 and Silent Hill 2 with keyboard controls. I think there are just a lot of whiny people who complain about the wrong stuff. Maybe the controls weren't 100%, but who cares? There's more important things than that to a game. No, there aren't. A car can be the greatest car in the world, but if the steering wheel is ****ed up it doesn't matter. Also it's not like we're talking about some complex game here, but a Diablo clone (and a rather simple one at that). Don't be such a whiner again. If you thought DS3 was too tough for you to play properly, go back and practice until you learn. It's not that hard. I understand if the controls could have been better, but who cares about such a banal part of the game as long as it is perfectly playable, really.

Since nuclear industry is utterly state-dependent it matters a great deal what people at the top think.And I really hope you don't mean that "earth is flat" Columbus nonsense made up by hollywood. Sorry, it was just a figure of speech, I honestly have no idea which people believed what at the time (regarding a flat earth), only that there has been a lot of erroneous theories and only in recent times have we started to be decent at replacing them. You can replace it with "earth revolves around the sun" or any other scientific theory. New technologies have always has their ups and downs. The ATM was technically invented far before it was widely used, for example. I think you and I have different opinions on what "future" means. If we imagine ourselves in a strange primitive tribal society thousands of years ago, and the shaman suddenly tells the tribe to abandon this new way of making fire, "because lots of people get scared", would you say that the way of no fire is the future? Certainly it will remain so for as long as anyone at that time can imagine. Obviously, the advancement of technology hinges on many incremental steps, one building upon the other. It's like when you're playing Civilization - you can't just say "No. We won't have Writing. I'll take Horseback Riding instead". Of course you can change the focus of your research, but eventually you will have to catch up in the areas you've neglected. So the question of what the future holds is not about what political leaders are discussing right now, but about the more objective potential of nuclear energy.

In case you didn't know, Gaza is a tiny, tiny, speck on the map which is essentially a huge refugee camp. It is completely impossible to get through by air or water, the only way you might get through is through tunnels under the Egyptian border. The inhabitants of Gaza are about as powerless as you can get and the only things they get today (except for food aid, which Israel anyway limits so as to starve them out), they get because of laxity on the Egyptian side of the border. If Egypt says they will make a crackdown on these smugglers (most of the smuggle food and construction materials BTW), all they are going to do is utilize intelligence they already have, send out a few policemen/soldiers in jeeps and blow up some tunnels. After that, they'll only have a few more guys on regular patrols and that's it. So they are in no danger of overreaching at all, these days Hamas are about as harmless as you can get. The new President could completely block the flow of arms to Gaza with his left pinky without breaking a sweat.

That is by no means clear at this point.In fact in US the "renaissance" met with major setbacks. I don't understand your point. It has met with "setbacks" consisting of protests and sabotage from the same old Luddite faction who then says the project has failed? All I'm saying is that the nuclear future is by no mean certain.Nuclear will be an important energy source in developing world but the west is generally moving towards renewables and fossil-fuels. Well, it doesn't matter really what the people at the top are currently deciding. At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did. We tend to think too much about what we have, even less about that which we know exists but is at an experimental stage (and nothing at all about what could exist in the future). Fossil fuels today are pretty much as good as they will ever get - we've reached the end of the line in that technology. Of course I'm not saying we should not invest in "renewable" energy! We should definitely continue to do so. But THAT's a technology which currently requires huge amounts of investments in comparison to the returns. If we want cheap, practical energy in the future, we want to continue scientific testing on different types of nuclear reactors.

The only place I've ever seen anyone say that game had good controls was here; pretty much any other forum not loaded with Obsidian fanboys agrees the controls are a **** show unless you use a gamepad (which is idiotic for a Diablo clone). I didn't say the controls were "good", just that they were not awful. And yes, in fact I happen to own the game for both the PC and the 360 so I've also been able to compare. But then again, I also played Psychonauts, RE4 and Silent Hill 2 with keyboard controls. I think there are just a lot of whiny people who complain about the wrong stuff. Maybe the controls weren't 100%, but who cares? There's more important things than that to a game.

Here's a very interesting video hopefully showcasing a future, more politically active generation in Egypt: http://www.upworthy.com/a-12-year-old-egyptian-boy-flabbergasts-an-interviewer-they-werent-expecting-a-political-genius-4 (I think it was filmed during the protests against Morsi)