Rostere

That's because it was a linear console game; kind of hard to **** that up. However just look at it's PC port: they couldn't even get the control scheme right. I had no problem with the PC controls. Maybe you're just whiny?

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? It's exactly like dangerous materials and batteries and such - hazardous if you just drop them in nature, but eventually extremely profitable for recycling. I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Sweden where we have a well-established culture, or maybe habit is a better word, of recycling start-up companies are earning money by collecting hazardous waste, extracting rare materials and selling them. Almost all of the dangerous things which you don't want to litter nature with is worth to collect and recycle. Here's an intersting article on Thorium reactors. Sadly, most of the well established reactor types were constructed in conjunction with military appliances, and research into types of future reactors is very expensive and underpriotized.

He has some interesting points, aside from the Luddite garbage. The constant problem regarding equality/inequality is that the richer and more powerful are automatically better at setting the balance. Barring powerful events (like crashes) and movements countries tend to drift, if ever so slowly, towards being more unequal. High-risk loans coupled with "corporate socialism" like in the US is a recipe for (national) disaster. You should send Obama a documentary about the Swedish banking rescue, essentially IMO a perfect blueprint on how to handle a similar situation. Of course I don't mind at all the big bailouts from an egoistic perspective, but those who pay the taxes in the US should be up in fumes. But taxes have not increased in general (!), instead Obama has chosen to extend many of the Bush era tax cuts. So who foots the bill for all of this idiocy? Well, let's see. The US borrows money... From US institutions (banks) and foreign nations. So an increasing amount of American tax revenue goes directly into the pockets of the banks themselves again, to pay for their own bailout! So as long as people don't believe the US will go bankrupt, banks and foreign nations have a huge vested interest in the US taking on more debt. Already today the US pays astronomical sums, about a third of the military budget. I guess it's the curse of democracy - the things which are both too abstract for the common voter to worry about, and Many tax systems today are also completely retarded and little attention is paid to this because 99% of all people don't understand the intricacies. Additionally, there is no real counterbalance to the financial sector lobby. There seems to have been more attention to tax havens recently though, and in a sense the US law of taxing any income is very modern, although ideally that would be arranged through an international agreement. I think social mobility is actually a pretty good indicator of what is "fair" equality/inequality. You should really mostly disregard temporary indicators like disparity of income, or who holds the wealth. But of course, equality is not all in a society. "American Dream" - that a strange and funny thing to be associated with a place with one of the most dismal social mobility rates of the developed world. Here, I'll tell you what's happening: internationalization. Those who are on top stay on top, while those who are not (ergo potential factory workers) suddenly compete with workforces from developing countries who can do the same job for a tenth of the pay. So it's actually pretty sensible that societies seem to get more unequal. But from an international perspective, the low-wage workers in Norway are in heaven compared to the low-wage workers in Indonesia. The high strata of Western societies are not only the upper class in those countries, but part of an international upper class of the entire world. The reason upper-class individuals are not equally exposed to competition is their superior education - as long as Bangladesh does not have a true equivalent to MIT, Harvard or you name it nothing is going to change. In fact the upper-class echelon from developing countries they would be competing against have in many cases studied at the same universities! So the parts of the Left (because of the hypocrisy, but really any sensible person) who are in it out of pure self-interest should really argue for laws for better working conditions in developing countries, and aid for development to these countries. What is the key to this from the perspective of the developed country? EDUCATION. You need to give your population the tools to compete, and to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation is made possible by education in general but primarily by the natural sciences, that's really quite simple. Education is THE investment a country can make in itself to increase long-term competitiveness. This is also something that requires an altruistic perspective to realize - if you're a parent and you think education is important, you can see to it that your kids do things right. If you are young, you can see to your own education (in some countries you also need to afford this...). You need to go outside your personal sphere in order to understand that if government inaction and inefficiency creates a system where people routinely do not finish primary or secondary school, or where people learn nothing to build on during this education, you're destroying the most important foundation of a competitive economy.

The fallacy there is that "nuclear" does not equal "green". If I was Angela Merkel I'd invest in nuclear energy research. Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

The pilgrims are from all over the world. When they return home, carrying the virus...

On the other hand, the new leadership of the FSA is reported to have good ties with SA. If we buy in to the hypothesis that these AQ-aligned fighters are financed by Saudis (but of course not directly by the SA government), maybe what's really happening - or what's really important - is the internal conflict in SA over which rebels to fund. Maybe this new conflict between the rebels is really about who can lay claim to these supplies. Here's another interesting article.

Ah, here's a page with much better graphical representations explaining the different Y-DNA haplogroups: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml Well, the ancestry of the Basques is not THAT mysterious (compared to other peoples), the big mystery is exactly how their language is connected to other languages. To refresh everyone's memory, Europe was invaded by Indo-European peoples as a continuous process between about 4000 to 1000 BC (which is not that long ago when you think about it). From this, we have gotten virtually all our languages we speak today! Except for Basque, which is (widely accepted as) belonging to those who already lived there, the "native" Europeans, so to say. The Basque people indeed have the most significant native European maternal ancestry - the conclusion we must make is that their society was at one point composed of a majority of Indo-Europeans among men (and also almost no Indo-European women - connected to the low frequency of mtDNA haplogroup T). So, the children probably learned the language of their mothers. Indeed the Basques do not have a "unique" genetic heritage, just an extreme composition of already known genetic strains, coupled with a unique language. Now here and here's something REALLY mysterious. There are a few other interesting observations you can make. The Irish and the Finns are two of the most ethnically homogenous larger groups in Europe (from an Y-DNA perspective), with the Irish being paternally related to the original western (westward?) Indo-Europeans and the Finns to their own Finno-Ugric Y-DNA haplogroup N. You tend to think of the Finns as a people few in number, but a lot of the area of current Russia is full of people with Finnic genetic heritage (reflecting the areas the Finno-Ugrian peoples were originally native to). Now when you look at the maps on the link above, "native" European paternal ancestry is found (in interesting amounts) today in two flavours: in Sweden and in northern former Yugoslavia. Sweden was probably too remote and sparsely populated for anyone to bother to invade, and perhaps the inhabitants of that certain part of the Balkans were already significantly advanced to be able to defend themselves. So, regardless of the similarities of the languages, the dominant genetic heritage of Serbs and Croats are native European, not eastern Indo-European like in Russia. Now back to the Huns: They probably had a very mixed heritage, just like most people originating in that region from that certain timeframe (and it is actually known that what we today call "Huns" were a confederation of many different tribes). It is known on the other hand, that the Scythians of old were almost exclusively from Y-DNA haplogroup R1a, which corresponds with the majority of western Russia, Belarus, eastern Poland and northern Ukraine. So while I think it unlikely the "proper" Huns themselves were not predominantly R1a, they might very well have picked up large numbers of R1a tribesmen in former Scythian territory. This blog makes an interesting case that the "proper" Huns belonged to haplogroup Q. Something I like about genetics is that it's often a fart in the face of older racist ideas, for example: Most Turks are NOT related to other Turkic-speaking peoples - on the other hand, they are closely related to Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. Which the Turks have been persecuting for ages. If Hitler's "Aryan" race was to be found in Germany, then either 1. It would have been the Indo-Europeans (R1a/R1b). In that case, the "purest" population would have been found in Ireland and coastal France, not in Germany. And he would have spent years fighting and murdering his Indo-European cousins the Russians. How ironic. 2. He really meant the native Europeans, in which case the swastika would be a completely misleading symbol. In this case, he should have abandoned Germany altogether and traveled to Yugoslavia or Sweden, two rather weak countries militarily where his political ideas did not go down well at all. If you look at European Jews, the parts which stand out genetically are parts which are found most ofthen in the Middle East, especially among the Arabs in today's Israel. So while Israeli right-wing presidents brag to each other about how they have managed to reduce birth rates among Palestinians, they are actually discussing their own genetical brethren. During and before WW2, the Japanese occupied China and Korea and inflected horrible atrocities upon those countries. If you look at genetics however, the Japanese are a mixture of Chinese and indigenous Ainu. Considering that the Ainu have been a persecuted minority for ages in Japan, that can't have been the reason of their stance. Yet they accuse this other part of their lineage, the Chinese, of being "inferior". That's not just racist and hypocritical, it's also mind-numbingly stupid. I you were to generalize this, I would say that it says something about how futile these wars are. And how ironic it is that we often end up fighting our neighbors, who we have the most in common with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_Y-DNA_haplogroups Although some have different names, YAP for example.

Actually I wrote a lengthy response to the last topic about this. Regardless of the opinions of a certain OP the topic in general is an interesting one (defining culture either through language or genetics). I'll give you a Wikipedia link to one of many interesting relevant articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Turkish_people So, in conclusion, Turks today are not genetically "Turkic", or at least not significantly related to other speakers of typically Turkic language. Another interesting map: http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue18/images/large/pq1713050001.jpeg But of course, the conclusions differ depending on which lineages you decide to look at. Anyway the most important point is that it's a fallacy to try to identify so old cultures with existing ones, just because we use the same name for them. In many cases the original cultures have changed language, been split across borders, been united with different cultures, been invaded, that they no longer can be identified with their ancestors. It seems possible if not likely that the Bulgarians of old is not similar at all to today's Bulgarians. "Turkic" is also a word whose meaning has changed with time. In addition, many cultures we today look upon as homogenous are in fact genetically very diverse (see the map again), and languages can also have literally tons of loan words we fail to recognize today. But really, many of these studies are really lacking from a mathematical/statistical point of view - you'd want them to do a "cluster" graphical representation based on several alleles and not only lump everything together based on our modern borders between cultures, analyzing only a single one. They give only a very crude oversight of the reality.

Gamers truly have the memory of goldfishes. Not so long ago, people all hated Steam because they were forced to have it with HL2. Everybody said it would be a flop, because "who does not want the game on a CD"? Look at the situation now: http://gaben.tv/ Meanwhile, the XBox One gets torn to pieces while it does basically the same things, only potentially better. For shame, Internet. For shame.

Not really, more like: "The military stepped in and threw out the elected Muslim Brotherhood president, who had failed to address the country's economical problems and was busy writing a constitution which was too religiously conservative even for some who had voted for him" He didn't specifically target any political enemies, but he was trying to shape the country into what he wanted himself without regard for consensus. But who knows, his partisan constitution would have laid the groundwork for delegitimizing political opinions later. For example, Israeli Basic law states that the country is "a state for the Jewish people". Parties or inidividual politicians who have explicitly argued that it should be a state for all it's citizens regardless of race/religion can face and has faced legal persecution and while thus far the judicial branch (withstanding a veritable ****storm from the extreme right) has prevented any action on this matter, it would considering that specific law be legal to prevent many of Israel's politicians from running for office. It's really a matter of interpretation, weighing different laws against each other, dependent on who is currently on the supreme court. The judicial branch is in Egypt dominated by "felool" or parts of the old Mubarak establishment. While they are not at all necessary supportive of his dictatorship they have made their career in a certain environment and are thus not likely to view favourably any blatantly Islamist laws, so even if Mursi would have wanted to persecute his political enemies he would have had to deal with them. From what I have seen and read they don't come along well at all with each other. Sorry, I can't give you the entire act However, most relevant stuff can be found publicly on Wikipedia. I'm even more impressed now that I read up on Libya there, apparently education used up 38% of the state's budget in 1998 under Khadaffi and in the mid-00s over 270000 out of a population of 5,6 million were enlisted in tertiary education. They seem to do better in those two regards than many Western countries.

I like more sudden and arbitrary degradation of equipment, such as in Arcanum. (In addition to realistic degradation where your weapon is destroyed if you hit a rock with it) You never know when you wil critically miss and destroy your entire set of clothes! Oh, and critical misses should totally be in as well. If you don't think those mechanics sound like fun, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT FUN MEANS. Go back and play vanilla Arcanum. I'll talk to you again in a 100 years.

I know it's old, but of course the Republicans want their say about this entire Muslim Brotherhood business. EDIT: Maybe I should have posted it in the "funny things" thread.

I guess it makes sense Robert Falcon Scott was British.

Increasingly, I think a lot of international political decisions are made by simpletons who act more out of spite than reason.

Of course they should be rewarded. I did not mean to say the opposite! And I don't think anyone at all says "investing in Muslim countries is risky" out loud. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who think that subconsciously, because of prejudices that exist. In fact I do know very well that Malaysia and Indonesia are interesting fields of investment, and pretty established ones at that. But since they are not situated in the ME, people will not associate them with being Muslim. Indeed I think people first and foremost think they're Asian. Turkey is also an example of an interesting Muslim place to invest your savings in, even if that is about to change. But really, several countries such as Libya, maybe Morocco and a few more really feel like potential for developing strong economies. Libya has a pretty modern government and the highest HDI in Africa, and an international school system with good English education. I'm sure they deserve more attention than they have got.

Just look at Burma. I don't know if you're interested in SE Asia from an investor's perspective but that country has seen a stellar rise recently. I remember a few years ago I was at an demonstration in support of Burmese monks calling for democracy. Today, their future looks brighter than ever and full democracy seems only a question of time. To be honest I think it's a bit of a unspoken criterion to be "non-Muslim" to be a viable country for investment today. Our commonly held prejudiced stereotype of Asians is that they are orderly and hard-working, albeit not very independent. On the other hand, prejudices against Muslims dictate that they are angry and constantly bickering without really any positive traits at all. If investors are worried the target country will be prone to tearing itself up in civil war over whether or not women should necessarily be dressed up as walking cabbage rolls, they will not give their support easily. Since extremist movements strengthen from poverty, this is sadly a self-fullfilling prejudice. Believe me, "former dictatorship transitioning towards democracy open to Western businesses and investment" is a magic concept. You'll be the ass-end of nowhere in one second, and the center of attention for global investors and outsourcing the other. Just like Burma.

Well, it IS not a mass movement (considered it started for real just some weeks ago), but it might have potential to end up one. I think it's a double-edged sword. It is critical of mismanagement by inexperienced Islamists in power but also way to keen on using the (oh always so secular) military to push their will through. The fragile democracies in the Middle East might revert back to military dictatorships again

Another thing which bothers me is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons... When the US achieves the military precision to safely take them out of operation before an eventual invasion, it will be rather justifiable to attack Pakistan if they happen to have a bonkers regime at the moment, which according to the report could happen very soon if extremist groups are allowed to run rampant - IF it weren't for the Army (also very corrupt and meddling in civilian affairs), which in turn is the prime target for US aid... So I really have the feeling that by bribing certain elements of the Pakistani power structure, the nation is prevented from an imminent collapse. Withdraw that support and either the Army or the Taliban (with insider support) will destroy the fragile democracy overnight. Urgh... I hate to link to the same news source all the time, but here's AlJ own take on the matter of Pakistani complicity.

It shouldn't be, but what is their motivation? It would seem pointless when they receieve so much money from the US. As far as I know they get nothing from their (indirect) operations in Afghanistan. Also, if we all know that at least large parts of Pakistan including the ISI are either ignoring or actively working against US interests, why does the "alliance" continue? And why was the US so slow to act on their Pakistani intelligence? The report made clear that the US had good evidence already in 2010 that OBL was inside that building. It all seems so idiotic. You'd almost think the US are actively trying to create future enemies.

It appears the Egyptian secular revolutionary "Tamarod" movement has inspired others to follow suit: http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201307082347-0022890

I don't think Iran actively supports Al Qaeda (I take it to be almost impossible considering what is happening in Syria right now, for example), but I find it interesting that they might have caught him (and/or close relatives), and then released them. I think of it as the same kind of connection there was between Lenin and Imperial Germany, for example. Of course OBL just ended up sitting on his arse doing nothing, but that's a different story. But the most interesting thing in the report, as I have said earlier, is the staggering negligence/incompetence of the ISI and also Pakistani civil authorities. I knew Pakistan was a broken and corrupt country but this report make it sound like it's even worse.

So, apparently the Abbottabad report, the internal Pakistani report containing the accounts of all Pakistani eyewitnesses to OBL's killing has been leaked. These eyewitnesses include those living with OBL, and the present a very detailed and interesting perspective. The report also contains lots of small interesting details, for example OBL had allegedly written in his will (currently in American possession) that his sons should not seek leadership positions in Al-Qaeda, and OBL at some point fled through Iran, perhaps with the consent of the regime. The report is very critical towards Pakistan, even shockingly alleging that it is possible that OBL must have had support from within the ISI, and that other ISI agents also were paid off by the CIA. Overall it is a unique look at how negligence and cooperation could allow him to be on the run for so long, and at how Pakistan dealt with the American incursion. One page is notably missing, probably cut as to not reveal information which could potentially hurt someone. Here's the direct link: http://webapps.aljazeera.net/aje/custom/binladenfiles/Pakistan-Bin-Laden-Dossier.pdf And here is Al Jazeera's page on the subject: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/binladenfiles/

I don't think a RPG without durability is bad, it does not need to be bad at all. But I think it's quite awful that they changed their mind over what a few whiners said. Obviously a RPG with perfect durability mechanics is going to be better, but it may be true that instead of balancing durability, they now have time for other stuff.

You're right, they may very well not have that source of funding, I read up a bit on their ideology (they seriously do not believe that rain comes from evaporated water) and although there is not much to read about it it might actually not be directly influenced by Wahhabism and thus not funded by Saudi interests. It's a pity there is not an Islamic pope and a proper inquisition, these heretics would have met the stake long ago. I really wonder what the higher Muslim religious leadership is up to regarding these matters, and how actively they seek to couteract these extremists.