Zoraptor

Was going to as well, then I read the min specs. I know Unity is a bit of a pig, but 6 GB of RAM seems a little excessive. So it'll have to wait until I replace my 10 year old (in ten days time) computer which will probably be Jan/ Feb when Zen is released.

There's no way he can have exculpatory evidence though. That's the nature of historical accusations- they may be true or they may be false, but they're near impossible to prove false. Proving that you, say, weren't on a particular flight 30 days ago is a whole lot easier than proving you weren't on a flight 30 years ago, and any witnesses are almost certain to have forgotten. At that point it's just he said/ she said. And while there's an outside chance you might get proof for one accusation you aren't going to get it for multiple ones.

Oh yeah, she might. I rather doubt it personally but she certainly could. A lot of the problems that make her a flawed candidate would not necessarily make her a flawed president, but there a lot of other factors that may. When it comes right down to it Hillary is a status quo candidate who is unlikely to make any earthshaking departures from general orthodoxy. She probably won't get into a nuclear war with the Russians or any of the other nightmare scenarios. That's fine when the status quo is popular, but it certainly isn't popular at the moment. The trouble is also that the status quo- things like the low interest rates, deficit spending- cannot be maintained indefinitely, most of the vested interests that want it maintained are Hillary supporters, and fixing issues will often require working against those who backed her. If Obama, far less beholden to/ supported by those vested interests has found it hard to make changes she'll find it harder, while making such changes becomes more and more urgent. The big problem she will have though is the same as her big problem on the campaign though; she isn't really likeable. People tend to be far more forgiving of people they like and forget their flaws more readily. She's likely to be elected as the most disliked/ negatively viewed president elect ever, so she's starting from behind in the first place. Of course, if she gets a run of excellent growth, lower unemployment, reduced deficits or even surplus etc then people are unlikely to care about her likeability, but the last such run was 20 years ago when Bill was President.

She'll have four years to entrench herself though, and put down further roots into the establishment power bases that she has exploited and which are protecting her already. Incumbency has a large effect and Hillary will use that to its full extent- she barely seems to care about what is legal now, she'll be worse in power. And to be honest, the Republicans don't look like they're able to produce anyone popular and inspiring; people like Jindal, Walker or Rubio were meant to be this generations hot new conservatives and they flopped, badly. The Republican platform has got too narrow, barring someone like Trump and he's too narrowly appealing in a completely different way. Ironically, I suspect that Hillary would probably have a worse chance against Sanders v2.0 in 2020 than the current obvious Republican candidates but there would be very little chance of any serious primary challenge to a sitting President.

Pretty sure the only circumstance under which you have to 'rat out' your client in the UK is if they pose a continuing or imminent threat to the public or themself. As a comparison that's the only circumstance (exc court orders etc) under which doctors can break privilege too. Otherwise it's the same as elsewhere, you cannot use a defence knowing it to be false, so if your client confesses you cannot mount a defence pretending they didn't do it.

Poor Fox News reporters, they missed out on a night including the unknown mysteries of something called 'passed hours devours'. Dear Jesse, if you cannot use french properly andor just rely on autocorrect then don't try to be pretentious and just call the hors d'oeuvres 'nibbles', 'snacks' or 'fingerfood' like any normal person would. 'Hours Devours' sounds like Hillary is going to consume a portion of your life essence for turning up, or at best that it will be extremely long and excruciating boring.

People should believe Hillary because Trump wants to grab your cat and hates tacos. At least that seems to be the media take on it. She is? What you talkin' bout'? Is there something I'm missing? She's totally finished, writing emails on an insecure server. Kind of amusing how similar politicians are to ten year olds. John Kerry stamping his foot and never, ever wanting to talk to Sergei ever, ever again because he's horrible and he hates him (let's have a meeting at the weekend, Sergei, we'll even leave out those nasty Limeys and Frogs), the level of casual bitchiness in pretty much all the emails (distinct honourable mention to Powell though), the attempts to infiltrate other groups' play castles and learn their secrets, holding grudges and getting upset at people not sharing their toys.

Not just Brexit, the last election result in Britain was outside of polling predictions, as was the recent Colombian Peace referendum where polls all had 'Yes' winning comfortably, most by 2:1, but 'No' ended up winning narrowly. Plus of course there were all those exit polls in the Democratic Primary where it turned out most of the people voted Hillary but said they voted Bernie for some reason. Polling is inaccurate in situations where the polled are conditioned to be 'embarrassed' to say who they'd vote for. So if you have a CNN poll, and CNN is stridently pro Hillary/ anti Trump then people who would vote Trump won't say so; and that's true to a lesser extent even if you use a 3rd party neutral/ 'neutral' polling organisation. There's certainly some of that going on, how much is the open question.

They are Turkish designs, not Russian. It's pretty obvious why a certain subset of Turks would genuinely, or close enough to it, love Putin- Erdogollum obviously models himself on the Putin template. The Turks really, really want Russian tourists back else Erdy would not have apologised over the shoot down and tacky garb that no one will actually wear is a great (or 'great') way of doing that as is hosting Putin; doing so at the same time much of NATO are throwing a tanty is just an added bonus to both sides.

She went on about 'the high road' (quoted from her 'good friend' Michelle Obama for a cheap pop, and who most people have as cordially loathing Hillary for the birther/ closet muslim controversies her campaign encouraged) then immediately proceeded to take the low road with the rest of her answer. She's probably made various contractors billions of dollars with those mistakes though, and greatly increased the influence of foreign policy commentators. Objectively her foreign policy decisions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars for a nett result of... much failure, near zero success which isn't 'technical' success and increased chaos. To be fair, the Iraq War wasn't her decision and would have happened whether she voted for it or not, but she did vote for it. It's even worse if you go back to the WClinton administration and add in their mistakes. And I guess the "I'm just a stupid tech illiterate granny" showed intelligence in that it, well, worked. It probably shouldn't have, but it did. People go on about how bad a candidate Trump is- and he is- but it goes to show how fundamentally awful Clinton is that she's having such trouble with someone who half of his own supposed party actively dislikes and despite near universal slanted coverage from the press plus copious endorsements.

He vowed to prosecute. It's about half and half, assuming my memory is correct. His reply was that he'd bring in a Special Prosecutor for the server issues if elected, but it was only when Hillary said "if Trump were President.." (ie past tense) taht he interjected with "you'd be in jail". Yo dawg, we need some fact checking in our fact checking. It's not like the US accidentally killed about 100 Syrian soldiers fighting ISIS a couple of weeks ago or anything.

Yeah. Doesn't mean it isn't the Russians doing it, but it's what you'd say if you wanted someone else to blame that appeals to a knee jerk anti foreign stereotype (another facet of the Clinton campaign that is similar to Trump's, but hardly mentioned in their case) and couldn't blame your internal enemies because that could be tested in an actual court where you'd have to present actual evidence. That's actually the least alarming part to me, as it's part and parcel of politics. Our government regularly blames the old government for stuff despite being in power for 8 years and Putin blames the west for problems in Russia too. Blaming anyone else is par for the course in politics. Nah, Putin doesn't want another Cold War- the USSR lost that one, with a whole lot more resources than Russia has now and he knows that. What he wants is no further encroachment and no further erosion of power.

You have to admit, though, that it does make perfect sense that the Putinistas would be doing everything they can to get the manifestly unprepared, intellectually and temperamentally unfit bad joke of a candidate who has publicly expressed doubts about NATO into the White House. Yes, it would, it would also be seen as payback for the US supported NGO interference/ 'interference' there has consistently been in Russian politics. But practically it just means that the suspect list is narrowed down to anyone with a grudge against Clinton (or the US) or a preference for Trump; which is essential common sense. That's a problem inherent to having terrible server security, a script kiddie could have hacked Clinton's server and obtaining people's email passwords does not require state level apparatus either- you just need phishing, password reuse or a weak password. And the complementary point is also true- it makes perfect sense for Clinton to blame Russia as it reduces focus on the contents of the leaks, the poor security and, uh, borderline illegality shall we say? of her private server and switches it to being a Vast Right Wing Russian Conspiracy so everyone should vote Clinton to stick it to Mad Vlad. Which also fits with claims that election machines are being hacked, for all people have said that Trump may refuse to accept the result he isn't the only one laying the groundwork for claims of electoral fraud should they lose. (Slightly off the proximal topic, but I find the idea of not having a consistent physical voting method and having electronic machines to be a spectacularly bad idea in any case. Accusations of hacking/ fraud will just get more common.) Also practically, there's the problem that near everyone expects Clinton to win and has always expected Clinton to win. Presumably the Russians can look at polls too, and make the same judgements as everyone else. It's actively counter productive to antagonise her if you expect her to win, and any 'dirt' would be better used for either blackmail or to derail her after the election if she's inevitably going to win anyway. The calculus there would change, if they have something really major to release, but while a lot of the stuff released does not paint Clinton or the DNC in a good light it isn't smoking gun level; and I don't think any reasonable analysis would calculate that what has been released (yet) is enough to change the election.

X labs from Stalker: SoC. Also, rather surprisingly, the endings. The mid game cutscene from System Shock 2. The mid game cutscene from Bioshock. The 'ski jump' in System Shock. I was pretty impressed with myself making it then cue 'nice jump, human' and an ambush by a bunch of security droids. Got trolled by an AI, guess that automatically passes the Turing Test. The music from Outcast was perfect I think only the System Shock one actually counts as a moment though.

Celebration -- Kool and the Gang Dancing on the ceiling -- Lionel Richie Na na Hey Hey Goodbye -- Gabe Newell FTR Zora thinks that people who choose 'teams' for anything other than sports are inflexible doctrinaire morans, and that it is thus utterly unsurprising that Bruce always nails his colours to teams. Zora also finds Bruce's deliberate manipulations of other's positions to get replies to be obnoxious. Plus, still no proof that Russia leaked anything, just assertions from the same people who said that Iraq had deployable wmds, yellowcake, worked with Al Qaeda and a host of other politically mandated falsehoods. D+ overall you got a reply and had your name at the top of the post so I have to give your troll at least one grade, and my regret for not reporting you when you admitted to trolling goes up sufficiently that if you ever do so again- or admit it for anyone else- I most certainly will. I have the playlist all cued up and ready to go.

"Our dedicated boys keep the peace in newly annexed Canada" -- Clinton Galaxy News Network

I had a non turbo subaru 4wd station wagon/ estate which was 'only' 2.0L and it was absolutely fine in terms of speed and acceleration. It was actually pretty good off road as well, except for its ground clearance. It certainly felt more nippy and was far more pleasant to drive than the 4+ litre turbo SUV my sister had (albeit that was diesel) due to being far lighter and having far better handling, and it was better for suburban driving and acceleration than any SUV or Utility I've driven. Personally I wouldn't go for a turbo for the same reasons as you but to be fair I actually do have one now and so far it's been perfectly reliable for 70,000 km.

The one thing nobody has said about the DNC etc leaks is that it was falsified, indeed the whole point of Red Scare 2.0 was to get people talking about the, uh, red herring of who did the hacks instead of what was in them precisely because they were genuine. If they could have proven they were false, they would have. You're probably getting your Russophobe knee jerks confused, it was (supposedly) DCLeaks, not wikileaks, that got some altered stuff. There's tons of stuff that could end her campaign- proper outright bribery or anything else of significant illegality. I doubt it actually will, if only because it's so late in the piece and some are so invested that she'd probably try and stick it out (or claim it's false) whatever it is. Plus, Assange is a salesman, he may be gilding the lily in terms of how significant anything he has actually is.

to be more specific, the Codex wants attributes and character progression to be designed in a way that allows broken character builds. your character is too weak and you cannot advance in the game? your own dumb fault for not reading tutorials/guides. your character is too powerful and blazes through every encounter? your own dumb fault for developing him that way. basically, that's what most people find enjoyable - or so they think. which is absolutely not the case. I could never understand this irrational position, but I also think it would've never been an issue if Sawyer hadn't given any insight into how he designed his systems. people just started to freak out even before the game was available, and then it was so much easier to find something validating their complaints. I mean, they think Arcanum is the best game ever, and that game had probably the worst combat I've ever experienced. Pretty sure they think Fallout (1) is the best game ever, or PST, though neither of those had 'balanced' combat either. Well, I guess PST's combat problem was not lack of balance (and in most combats you literally could not die, so obviously balance per se was not a concern), to be fair, but rather that its combat was pretty crap. I do tend to agree with the Codex that you need to have potential 'broken' builds. That's part of learning games and improving in them, and the alternative is what? Oblivion, where you can win the game at level 2, and it's probably easier to do it that way than by playing properly? Arcanum and Oblivion are two extreme positions, the happy medium is what should be aimed for, especially in a party based game like PoE where the weaknesses/ strengths of one character build are (or should be) complemented by the strengths/ weaknesses of another class. The classic example would be something like a D&D mage from BG2- massively underpowered if you don't know how to use them or make mistakes, or even are unlucky with saves. But they're extremely powerful when handled correctly. Correct positioning, spell selection and risk minimisation are the keys to using them correctly, if you focus on 'balance' too much you end up with a class that can take more punishment and is more flexible in terms of choices, but also is weaker overall. It's the 'glass cannon' dichotomy, the glass part inherently balances out the cannon part; 'balance' as it is usually used tends to dictate that every class ends up as some sort of mid calibre gun. Thing is, there's not a single game I can think of where poor balance did not detract at least somewhat from the overall experience. The holy codex troika named above all have bad balance, and it all detracts from them at least somewhat. Though for F1 and PST other aspects make up for them they'd be better games with better balance. System Shock 2, great game, where any combat build except standard weapons makes little sense, psionics are massively underpowered for half the game then massively overpowered, some skills are basically useless etc. Balance wouldn't be at the top of the list, 3/4 of those games are great even with their balance problems (Arcanum's combat is just so bad though, it's a travesty) so clearly there are other factors that are more important for enjoyment, but I'd have to have it on the list if only to stop another potentially great game like Arcanum from being ruined. If 'balance' had been on Arcanum's priority list it would have been a far better game than it was. For that matter, if proper balance had been on Oblivion's priority list it would have been far better too.

Balance should make the shortlist, for sure, or you end up with Arcanum combat where you have super builds like anything able to spam harm non stop and everything else is progressively weaker. The problem the Codex (or a certain subset of it) had with PoE was more that the attempts to balance everything and have anything be a viable build left the classes/ characters feeling too generic and cookie cutter. Which I have a fair bit of sympathy with, without agreeing completely. So the 'Codex position' is essentially that balance should not be an end in and of itself, it's only a positive when it contributes to the game being enjoyable. If an obsession with balance results in a lack of fun then it's not actually an asset for the game to be balanced, it's a weakness.

SACP. Johnson faces stiff competition in US election Johnson exposed by Aleppo gaffe Weld leaves Johnson hanging when asked which world leaders he admired etc etc Might as well get them all out of the way.

No, just the one time in 1980-something where she laughed about the legal particulars of a rape case. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ 2011, actually, in Boo's favourite video of all time. Of all time! She came she saw, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was raped to death with a bayonet. Ahahaha! (Glad to see that Te Pepe has made it into the US education system. Lazar Kiwi was a better flag option though)

Masochistic? Yeah, that seems about right.

It is raining You are shivering You are shivering uncontrollably You have blisters You have hypothermia You have severe hypothermia You froze to death :( (I liked the Neo Scavenger, but sometimes I think we need a word other than 'fun' to describe such 'roguelikes')

The Senate has had an override vote, 97-1. Have to admit I'm kind of surprised, I was sure they'd let it dangle until the lame duck session and then forget about it. Guess that's exactly the sort of margin a veto override was designed for. (Obama is probably right to have vetoed it, and I say that despite loathing the Saudi state pretty much wholesale, as it opens a whole reciprocal can of worms. The US don't really want Pakistan suing them for drone strikes, Laos suing them for unexploded ordnance, Chile suing them for Pinochet, El Salvador suing them for School of the Americas etc etc etc etc)