Wrath of Dagon

1) He was 5'11" and very fit. From his texts he liked to fight and bragged about knowing how to sucker punch people and make them bleed. 2) Zimmerman is 5'7.5", about 200 pounds and quite unfit according to his gym instructor 3) Yes, there was a guy who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman, and Zimmerman yelling for help. There were also other witnesses who heard the fight and saw things right after the shot. 4) It means you are not required to try to escape when threatened, and can use deadly force if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. This is moot in this case since Zimmerman was pinned on the ground and couldn't escape. Also, can't people read around here? I already said and posted evidence that Zimmerman couldn't have been following Martin, it had to be as Zimmerman said, he was returning to his car when Martin circled back and jumped him. As far as double jeopardy, yes the Federal government can still charge Zimmerman with violating Martin's civil rights, even though an FBI investigation already determined there was no racial bias involved. As far as a civil suite, my understanding is under Florida law you have immunity from civil liability if you can show by preponderance of evidence it was self defense. Of course I don't know what the various subtleties may be. No priors because it was covered up : http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/ In fact he was with his father because he was once again suspended from school at the time.

The evidence all shows Martin came back and attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wasn't following him at the time but simply returning to his car (the fight took place almost next to Zimmerman's car, while Martin's house was about a 10 sec run away, while the evidence shows 4 minutes elapsed after Zimmerman got out of his car and Martin started running towards his house before the fight took place). Here's a map and a timeline of events http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back The same thing was shown at trial for anyone paying attention. It's an open and shut case of self defense, the only reason for controversy are racial politics.

RPG's are always risky, for that matter most titles are. Square Enix I think would only do internal development unless there are special circumstances, like a license, and they seem to be in a lot of trouble lately. Warner Brothers I don't know, what in hell do they even do? Edit: I guess I could see Deep Silver, if it's done on a shoe string, may be Ubi but seems unlikely, admittedly there might be others I forgot about.

This alternative energy stuff sounds great! http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/13/germans-re-thinking-turn-to-green-energy/

Why? Because unlike other publishers Bethesda seems to be flush with money, and they've at least shown some willingness in the past to finance slightly unusual projects, and I can't really think of any one else who's either capable or willing.

There has been three replications of the biggest one of the nine studies that Bem published, all three were negative. So, yeah. Not replicated. And Bem by his own admission, manipulated the data aswell, so that it looked better. What else from what I remember hearing about it, the results of Bem's research was something like 53% hits when 50% would be random chance. It's not impressive enough to actually prove something this extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan/Marcello Truzzi Can you link to any info on this, I was wondering why I never heard about those studies being replicated. Edit: Never mind, it's on Wikipedia.

If Bethesda decided not to finance it, I doubt anyone else would.

Well, passing a peer review doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue But there was some discussion at the time that perhaps the standard psychological methodology was inadequate if it could be used to show something like that.

I do think most psychics are frauds, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of true psychic phenomena. One just has to consider the facts objectively and not jump to conclusions.

My take on it is that we have to consider that there may be more than just the natural world. Here's a similar story from 2010 with a far happier ending: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/14/florida.girl.rescued/index.html As far as not being repeatable, that's not surprising. If it was repeatable, it would be science, and science is the study of the natural world. Of course there's also this : http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/04/precognition-real-cornell-university-lab-releases-powerful-new-evidence-human-mind-can/ proving once again that porn is more powerful than nature.

This is torture. First no KOTOR 3, and now all the great sounding Sci-fi games get cancelled.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/12/detective-woman-with-visions-led-to-boy-body/?test=latestnews

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? They see it as giving them leverage in Afghanistan, especially once the US leaves, as has been mentioned. As far as the "alliance", US needs a supply route into Afghanistan for one thing. And I guess we'd rather have some influence than none at all. Cynically I could suggest they were waiting until closer to the election, but perhaps they did have legitimate intelligence operational reasons.

Considering that it's well known Pakistan sponsors the Haqanni network in Afghanistan, any treachery on their part shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Did you pay for the article? (I didn't) The abstract for the article only states an estimate of 20,000 for 2009, not 2006. No, I didn't pay. 7000 in 2006 is what it says in the abstract, unless we're somehow looking at different articles. Edit: sorry, I followed the link from the Wikipedia article, I see you actually linked to the update with the 2009 number. No one here said such a thing. I will certainly grant it more credence, however, than a poster with an agenda on an internet message board that makes a loaded post with an implication to the seriousness of the environmental impact wind generators have on bird populations simply by posting that, in fact, a bird was killed by a wind generator (all the while downplaying things like oilspills because they are accidents, not a part of normal operation). That's a lot to surmise from my simply posting an ironic news story. Don't know enough to answer that question, not sure anyone does. It does however bring up the point that when claiming an energy source is "clean", especially with low intensity sources, one has to consider the energy cost and environmental impact of construction, maintenance and decommissioning of that energy source, and not just view it as perfect source of clean energy. For example, a study was done that building an electric car takes so much extra energy that the only way energy is saved if that car is driven for many years at long distances, which few are because of their limited range. Also corn ethanol, although considered "renewable", actually takes about as much energy to produce as it provides. In general, if something costs a lot more, it's because it consumes a lot more resources, thus the desirability to have the market determine which energy sources win out, as those are likely to be the most efficient.

Part of me has to ask "If it causes more damage than the windmills, do we care if it's an accident?" (Note the word "if" as I don't actually know the numbers). There is also situations such as when wildlife enters tailing ponds of oilsands extractions (as an Albertan, this topic comes up a fair bit): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2010/10/26/edmonton-more-ducks-tailings-pond.html This article refers to 230 dead ducks, although it does reference an incident that happened in 2008 where 1600 ducks were killed by landing in a tailing pond, although in both cases you could rule it as an "accident" as well. I did a google for "birds killed at power plant" and ended up at the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Ecology Whether or not "per Gigawatt Hour" is the best form of measurement is something I can't really agree nor disagree with. I could see having more wind power generators altering this number, but it could just as easily be an improvement as a decrease for me as I'm just guessing. A paper was written in 2009, here, that appears to conclude that wind power generators are safer for birds than fossil fuel power generators, although states that additional research is required. This was the source for the Wikipedia articles numbers. Ok, the study you linked (published in 2009) estimates in 2006 7000 birds were killed by wind turbines in the US, while the same Wikipedia article states that a US government estimate in 2009 was 400,000 birds killed by wind turbines annually. Not saying either one is correct, but it's quite a difference. Of course we're supposed to unquestionably accept any study because it's "science".

The only ones I'm aware of are due to oil spills. Mind you those are accidents, not part of normal operations.

Hmmm, please convince me that I'm wrong in assuming that there wasn't any sort of inference because it was done by a "clean power generator." I don't understand what you're asking. Of course the point was that it was done by the "clean power generator" as are uncountable numbers of bird deaths if that's what you mean by inference.

Humans are having a devastating effect on the environment: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/28/birdwatchers-flock-to-see-rare-bird-then-watch-it-killed-by-wind-turbine/

Well, I can't see what I'm agreeing with, but may be I'm not understanding the discussion.

An interesting update on Age of Decadence http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,3347.0.html

Inspector General said conservative groups were targeted, there's no evidence liberal groups were.

This is a strong argument for removing submitter names from the peer review. Interesting, however, that your article would have passed it's own peer review! I wonder if the fail rate would be the same now, or if papers like that made an impact (it was written in 1982). My bad. I saw this reported recently, assumed it was recent, then googled it to post the link, and didn't notice it was from '82. Probably the same thing would still hold though.

Here's what happened when already published articles were resubmitted for peer review under unknown names: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 Edit: Btw, the only science "we" don't believe in is global warming, which is politicized junk science at best and complete fraud at worst.

Yes, funny how a Marxist rag like Mother Jones is complaining about people ignoring facts and evidence. Here's an interesting article on the peer review process : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/peer-evil-the-rotten-business-model-of-modern-science/