Rostere

I really don't see why Byzantine History should be at all relevant to the Inquisitor storyline. The only things Byzantines and Sith had in common is that they were ruled by an emperor. An interest in Byzantine history could at the very least give a hint regarding which direction the writer will take the story. Considering for example contemporary associations with Byzantine society, at least I get decidedly positive vibrations: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Byzantine

Amen, brother...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_MZKGVY29M So. Awesome!

This is easily the best game since, like, Alpha Protocol... They should really have had larger hubs in AP, which DE3 makes very clear...

I just discovered Deus Ex 3 was well worth waiting for. Oh well, that means back to waiting for Thief 4.

Pretty much sums up what is happening in Sweden as well...

Incorrect. Self employed upper middle class and extremely educated. Don't be silly.

White, unemployed, no substantial education. Typical right-wing extremist.

Voted AP. NWN 2 (counting in all expansion packs) and KotOR 2 ar close runners-up though.

So, today I mixed 4 litres of punsch - a traditional Swedish liqueur. Later today I'm going to take a stroll to my local cigar specialist and buy something fitting to smoke while drinking punsch made from the finest ingredients. Life is good being unemployed in the summer.

Isn't that sort of the genre's whole point? The (negative) effects of scientific advancement? I guess you could say so, it's just that I feel there are other aspects of cyberpunk I think you can explore. In any case, it's interesting why a cyberpunk universe tend to center around that particular narrative. Is it just the Bladerunner influence, or is it inherent in the setting? I think DE3 explores this central theme excellently, anyway. From what it seems it's more Bladerunner- inspired (or would you say traditional cyberpunk-inspired? Fundamentalist traditional cyberpunk?) than the original game.

So, to get into the mood for DE3 I'm currently playing Snatcher for the SEGA CD. It's an excellent cyberpunk game by Hideo Kojima which borrows very heavily from the Bladerunner movie. Funny that the theme with artificial humans is so common in the cyberpunk genre!

+1

We should probably PM him. I don't think he reads the WoT forum...

That problem is quite obvious to anyone who's been to Greece . It's not the only problem though. For example, politicians often secure their voters' support by hiring people to administrative jobs invented for the sole purpose of buying votes. The political system is stagnant, where the most powerful politicians are often from the same families. From both what I've seen and heard, it's really quite bizarre that it has been going on for so long. Oh well. You can blame that on the Euro.

Oh, come on. How hard would it be to move all the world's naval military training to target practice outside the coast of Somalia?

Obviously the most badass anthem in the world.

Still, with those numbers the risk that exactly this would happen is in hindsight roughly 5 percent, with the approximation that the reactor shutdown would have commenced in 2011. Would you make that gamble? Planning for extreme events is central to planning nuclear power. If you look at what happened you realize they had not planned for a flooding at all, and not provided enough redundant power supply options.

My favourite: "those damn krauts deserve to be hit by a earthquake tsunami for nuking pearl harbor" And: "who gives one **** about japan? not this guy. did they send aid when americans were dying during katrina? hell no, remember pearl harbor? Late justice." Well... http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english...768313e-02.html It's both funny and kind of scary to read these people's comments... You'd scarcely believe we live in the 21st century.

Well. The obvious explanation is the the rebels cannot afford to justify Khadaffi's claims of Western involvement. That would probably undermine the entire revolution. I'm sure they'll simply send these people home without any hassle... The humanitarian situation is at a risk of becoming dire though, and supply of food and other necessities should be ensured, preferrably in a more discreet way.

They have in common a past of authoritarian regimes, which is in this context a very important detail. However, you are perfectly correct in that those countries have different cultures and different demographics, two other important details. My point was that Afghanistan (if you consider Iraq fully democratic we can discuss only Afghanistan. I would like to point out that there's a huge difference between being democratic in theory and in practice, though) still has not had fair elections, although the previous regime was ousted many years ago. Yet Afghanistan is slowly, slowly on it's road to democracy. Changes don't happen instantaneously, but Tunisia, Libya and Egypt have taken a big step in the right direction. If you think genocide is a fair way of ensuring stability, then sure. Besides, both of the two first countries were recently (relatively, in this context) democratic. The governments of Japan and Germany were undermined by wars which decimated their population, and because of that the probablitity of a pro-war regime being elected was very low. However, the stability of those countries was greatly increased by the Marshall plan. If you compare the "peace" at the end of WW1 which only served to humiliate and destabilize Germany, actions made by the Western Allies after 1947 were a great success, perhaps the greatest achievements of diplomacy in the 20th century. That kind of things is what you should be pouring money into if you want to ensure the spread of democracy. The United States is an entirely different thing, though. I assume you are referring to the American Revolutionary War? Since it was an armed uprising against a foreign power, and not primarily a civil war, the downside would have been increased nationalism and aggression towards natives and other neigboring countries. However, since I don't know American history well enough, I can't say whether this was the case or not. Maybe you can fill me in? Also, I'd like to add that what might have been the case for the US here, and also Japan, is not impossible. It's just that it's not the most likely outcome. I maintain that the more violence you use in a revolution, and the more authoritarian the culture of the country was before, the more likely a negative outcome is.

I don't believe there will be fair elections in Tunisia or Egypt any more than I believe there will be fair elections in Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you understand what I mean? Even though there are some jumps and discontinuities, the road to democracy is a lengthy process and nothing will ever change in an instant. So you are saying that the Arabs, contrary to the British, are fundamentally corrupt and violent? I have plenty of friends from Arabic countries who are just as corrupt and violent as you and I, I'd like you to say that to their faces. If we can have a civilian uprising in Libya, obviously civilian uprisings are not hindered by "machiavellian use of ultraviolence"... I have never said that violent regime change is not effective (in general, and in reaching the goal of toppling the current government), only that the more violence you use, the more likely a backlash will be. Persons of violent ideals will always be the most violent rulers as well. Violence is a double-edged sword. If you prop up revolutionaries with weapons and tell them to go from house to house to kill regime supporters, then sure, you will have a revolution, however it's eventual result might not be what you wanted. In the end, whoever is able to massacre the most of the opposition will win. You will have to be careful in these matters. Chances are, that in an authoritarian country victim to a violent revolt you will only end up with a different kind of tyrant. Just look at South America through the 20th century, or even their current leaders, products of earlier decades of political oppression and corruption due to the Cold War, US and USSR involvement. Did you also know that democracy is a relatively new phenomenon in human history? What has worked in the past is of course irrelevant when I'm suggesting a different, better way of doing things. Humanity also used to dig with our bare hands in the mud and bash each other's heads with rocks, something which has "worked" (in your sense of the word) for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it more sensible today. Wait, what? Are you serious here? I'm getting LoF vibes... For the sake of the argument, could you please write down which countries are democratical according to your opinion (because I assume you seek to counter my argument by saying that countries in which non-violent protests have taken place were in fact "nice" democracies? Colonial Britain, Apartheid South Africa and..?

As I see things, there have been two dictators deposed (in Tunisia and Egypt), in two countries now set to have free elections. If you suggest that bloodless demonstrations are pointless, I suggest you give the following a thorough look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution You being British I assume you have some knowledge of Gandhi, who together with the non-violent revolutionaries in the former Soviet Union would be reason enough to support the idea of avoiding excessive force in these very delicate situations. I do not doubt that regimes can be changed by military intervention, however the collateral damage in addition to the risk of a backlash are much greater. But let's not stray too far from my original point: that a revolution backed with arms from a Western country would fail because of it's own illegitimacy, and generate more casualties. To me, this is quite obvious. It also seems to be an aspect of the whole business advocates of war and violence never think of.

Haha. WTF!? That's right, he's committed heresy. Burn the witch. Why not have a think, y'know, an original thought? One not prescribed by your almost certainly libtard peer group? Maybe challenge them and explore a perspective you don't normally share? I do it now and then. Sometimes I even realise my point of view on a subject was skewed. Why not check it out? Oh please . I'm not part of any "peer group" of any political affliation. Don't try so hard to be condescending as it would only appear you are desperate when you're trying to use words such as "libtard" for people you are arguing with. If anything, the changes that are taking place in the Muslim world are proof that "Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld" and similar profiles advocating direct intervention were wrong, since the fact that the revolts are independent from Western influence are their greatest strength. In their last hour, falling dictators clinged to their strongest tool to incite the masses, repeating over and over that the revolts were controlled by the West, that the new regimes will be controlled by the West, that the West will benefit from "unrest" in the Muslim world, et.c. et.c. It might be worth to note that exactly the same demagoguery would have been just what was needed for their continued (mis-)rule, if "the West" had tried to influence the outcomes of these revolts. A military intervention anywhere would probably have ended up like just the disaster Iraq was, and further cemented Muslim prejudices about the intervening countries. All we have to hope is that things turn out well now. The next few months may very well see the largest gains for democracy since the fall of the Soviet Union, and in the long run the reconciliation between the Muslim and the Western world.