Zoraptor

Yeah, I said that Hasbro/ WotC made the Planescape setting available, not that InXile decided to use it. InXile had previously asked if it was available and was told no, hence going with Numenera, and that illustrates that WotC/ Hasbro has changed their policy along with other stuff like allowing a new 2e game.

That has to be the plan. There isn't much else for them to do which would get anywhere near the exposure and potential sales that a BG3 would; NWN3 is impractical as it would require a new engine (albeit there may well be be one for BG3 anyway), new rule set, construction/ DM stuff plus the name is already (mostly) in use for another current product and IWD/ Gold Box are less well known. Not any more. They also (eventually) explicitly made Planescape available for T:ToN as well, so their policy has changed pretty much wholesale over the past three years. While it was an understandable policy to get people buying the latest stuff and they likely prefer it still it was also short sighted and contributed to the dearth of credible D&D products on computer over the past decade. They acted like D&D was still a premier product that it was a privilege to be able to work on for far too long after it wasn't, and were far too precious.

Are you really that naive or I am that cynical? It might look like they want to look 'good' by these 'free giveaways' when reality is that they dont give you anything you cant have for free using google for 5 minutes. They just force you to get into their 'origin' machine That's true of literally every software deal in existence- you can almost always pirate instead. GOG gives away games as well, and it isn't because they're just awesome guys and it isn't like you couldn't just download Giants: CK or Duke3d or Lands of Lore or whatever 'for free' in that case either, if you felt so inclined. And, of course and as always, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to people who hate on Origin if they also hated on Steam, which has considerably worse terms in their SSA than EA has in their licensing, a lot more power and a distinct tendency to nickel and dime from said position of power. It's also the BSA doing the study. There's literally no chance of them saying that piracy is in any way OK, even if it were. The only difference between them and pirates doing a study is that the pirates will do it for free while the MBAs will hire a seven figure consultant to tell them what they want to hear. To lend credence to your argument, can you produce a valid study demonstrating the opposite is true? I don't need to, as it isn't really an argument, just an observation. The BSA is the Business Software Alliance, they have as much chance of saying that piracy isn't evil, wrong and thoroughly naughty as British American Tobacco would have of saying that smoking should be banned or as the US or Russian militaries would have of saying that they deliberately target civilians and laugh as they do it. They aren't going to say things that go against their interests, whatever the truth is.

I'd say that's the problem with being the 'establishment' candidate rather than being experienced as Rubio has much the same problem and he's certainly a lot less experienced than Hillary. There's a whole lot of baggage being the anointed one, not least that that position usually requires a lot of overt pandering to vested interests. The funny thing is that being prepared (or experienced) is hardly a sin, indeed it's genuinely a trait you'd want in a leader and there are ways in which to deal with criticism for being over prepared- which Rubio failed epically at last night- if you are able to vary the script on the fly when necessary. But, what might broadly be called 'likeability' was also the problem Hillary had last time and the comparison to Obama in that regard probably cost her the nomination then.

It's also the BSA doing the study. There's literally no chance of them saying that piracy is in any way OK, even if it were. The only difference between them and pirates doing a study is that the pirates will do it for free while the MBAs will hire a seven figure consultant to tell them what they want to hear.

I've seen a lot of those type of articles, I do wonder if it's reciprocal and Hillary supporters won't be there for Sanders if he wins. Good thing that's Bloomberg View otherwise I'd suspect that Mike was definitely going to run in order to save the US from Socialism and The Tea Party.

The why is pretty easy- being reasonable and fair tends to make for poor sound bites and is... boring, I guess would be closest. While people like to say that they vote for the sensible option that doesn't do dirty politics and has a positive message they're very prone to vote for those that use dirty tactics and just rationalise them away. For Presidents or Secretaries of whatever it very much tends towards the old adage of familiarity breeding contempt. Good decisions tend to be forgotten or put in the 'should have been better' category while every bad decision is remembered and dissected with a chorus of rivals and pundits saying how it could obviously have been avoided had they been in charge. OTOH he does strike me as a gigantic egotist. That would readily explain going for the most important job in the world.

It's definitely not oil, as kgambit says there simply isn't enough of it. The question of why would take literally pages of analysis. Though it might have something to do with the putative blocked gas pipeline from the gulf to Turkey via Syria even that is distinctly questionable as a major factor. From the west's perspective the three major factors were probably 1) Arab Spring made it doable and the narrative from it was... unfortunate, since the casualties were distinctly pro western dictators like Ben Ali (and Mubarak). Idea was to co opt it to get rid of leaders they disliked 2) The west's messiah complex, and the damage Iraq did to it 3) Their Gulf allies so very, very desperately wanted Assad gone and have lots of money (3) would be the biggest one by far, owing to the obsession KSA has with Iran and its shia crescent of influence, radicalising sunnis and (at best) marginalising those they don't see as proper muslims with Qatar and Bahrain not far behind there. Compared to the west they've expended vast amounts of money and political capital supporting the rebels, the west has largely just given lip service with no practical help. That's also why you have the west consistently describing Al Qaeda allied militia- literally the exact same relationship as the Taleban in Afghanistan has to Al Qaeda- as being 'moderate rebels'; those groups are the ones their allies primarily support. Now you can add a fourth reason too, butthurt that the Russian intervention is working, though again that is entirely lip service/ hand waving with no practical support and is more about PR than anything else. At this point they'll probably try for a 'sunnistan' solution of breaking up Iraq and Syria along- coincidentally, I'm sure- pretty much the exact boundaries of the current ISIS 'state'. Hence the talk of KSA contributing soldiers to an 'anti ISIS' ground force. They almost literally could not make a worse job of it than the west has made with their pet projects in Iraq and Libya unless they did so deliberately, Bruciekins.

US military sources are always rather blinkered. Losing Aleppo city would only be a symptom, losing the rural areas around it is the real blow and that's been happening slowly and steadily since October, with that article impying it isn't significant. Aleppo city has never been pro rebel to any significant extent, the rebels there are primarily rural people from rif (provincial) Aleppo, not natives of the city. Which is why there are so many refugees moving at the moment, they just aren't coming from Aleppo city as tends to be implied but rif Aleppo especially the area around Azaz where the rebels have managed to systematically antagonise the ISIS, the government and even the Kurds and are unlikely to be looked at kindly by any of those three groups- the rebel held areas of Aleppo city are massively underpopulated already and only have a single road out a narrow gap between the (albeit neutral) Kurdish enclave and gov lines which leads to the 'wrong' border crossing, not the one that is getting the refugees. Aleppo city is important to the rebels because of their ability to deny it to the government and because it is fundamentally defensible, to most of the rebel fighters their homes in those little towns and villages of a few thousand or a few hundred are more important. If Aleppo city's rebel areas fall quickly it will be because its defenders have packed up and gone to defend their homes and there aren't enough foreign jihadis there. The government nearly recaptured Aleppo city in 2014, ironically for all the talk of the government not fighting ISIS it was withdrawal of troops to fight them that may well have saved the rebels there two years ago. One thing is for sure, we haven't heard anything about the Russian intervention being 'ineffective' or 'another Afghanistan' for months.

It's the amnesia. Burdens of life weighting him down. But yeah, I didn't find the swamp too bad either, in fact it has some of the most memorable game's moments for me. Weird. I'd suspect those who hated the swamp were going back and forth a lot. While it's possible to only visit the swamp 3 (?) times in the whole game and do not that much criss crossing/ combat slog it's also easy to end up visiting it a dozen times with multiple criss crosses per visit and have hours of 1xp per kill drowner combat. It also has one easy to trigger potentially obnoxious quest at the start- Gramps' one with the multiple sets of multiple Echinopses when you may be at a level at which even killing one by itself is difficult. Having said that while personally I wouldn't call it a favourite area, it was pretty good.

Maybe that was a change to the EE though, not sure I played before its release.

What is it with all the articles saying that the rebels in Aleppo city are surrounded? The one above isn't even internally consistent since while it says at the top their last supply route is cut it later says (correctly) they have another supply line through Idlib to Turkey. Al Jazeera said they were surrounded as well- and they really ought to know better- citing a military source also.

1) It's certainly not an active anti ATGM system, it is at best a passive one like Shtora which spoofs the guidance system and may only be launch detection or situational awareness. 2) The rebels in Aleppo aren't cut off, there's a crossing to Turkey just off the left side of that map above at Bab-al-Hawa, the Azaz crossing (off north of map) is just more direct. Updated map direct from PetoLucem, because why not.

It's got nothing to do with them being stupid though it may well have something to do with being uneducated or (justifiably) ignorant- it's only stupid if you should know better. And I hardly think there's much evidence for me being a Euro exceptionalist. If you always make decisions based on being rational you're probably going to be just as 'stupid' as someone who never did, just stupid in a different way like one of those obnoxiously militant evangelical atheists. If that were the only example Gfted had used I wouldn't have said anything because there is some logical process there with it being based on traditional custom. His original situation though didn't have even that. Subjectivity and objectivity aren't neatly dividable, except in theory. I'd tend to describe subjectivity and objectivity as being two immiscible liquids floating on each other because it describes the simple sense of a line dividing the two perfectly and also the practical sense as there's always an interface between the two and always a bit of one liquid in with the other. That doesn't change anything though, unless you're going to argue that belief etc are- at their heart- objective and the rational process is- at its heart- subjective.

No, it doesn't and yes it would be wrong. Rationalising/ rationalisation is actually quite distinct from being rational; it's the process of working back from a conclusion you've already chosen using 'logic' to justify said conclusion while a rational decision reaches a conclusion based on the evidence presented. 'God told me to do it' is not a logical or rational explanation for something, no matter how much the person saying it may believe because it rests on belief in god, and belief is not a logical process where A follows from B, it's one where B springs direct from the mind. You can rationalise something like filling a slot machine with coins with something like "but the coins are still in there, logically if I won I would get them all back!" but that is using pseudo logic to justify something you want(ed) to do, the rational decision says that you won't win and you're wasting your money*. Rationising stuff is usually an emotional crutch to protect people from their decisions by framing them as not really being their decision but the person simply following what was logical. Blame English for the near contradictory terms being so similar, it's not the most, er, rational language. *You can gamble rationally, where skill is involved or where you only have to win once such as buying a ticket to a big stakes lottery. See Bruce, that's how you do passive aggressiveness properly.

That's belief/ morality/ tradition; not rationality. They didn't do an in depth analysis of the pro and cons before coming up with those rules, they do it because their parents did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster('s representative(s)) 'told' them to. Belief is not a synonym for rationality, and it doesn't matter how hard the person believes or whether you put airquotes around it. To go back to the original, meting out summary justice would be an emotional response, understandable perhaps even justifiable too, but there's no need for airquoting "rational" at all as it isn't even a slightly accurate usage and there are accurate terms available. Simple fact is that it is highly unlikely anyone would be able to make rational decisions in that situation, and the simple fact of having reasons for an action does not alone make it rational or logical. That's why you're getting flak for using 'rational', it simply isn't the right word for what you mean. What you're talking about is the mess of subjective stuff that goes on in people's minds involving belief, tradition, morality, emotion etc, they're all the enemy of rationality because rationality is at its heart an objective logical approach that is immiscible with subjectives like tradition, belief, emotion etc.

Anything can be "rational" to the person performing the action- just going to stick some more quarters into that slot machine, I'm due for a win having stuck ten thousand in already; that's just logic!- that doesn't make it actually rational in any sense at all except that the person is deluded enough to believe it is. Being rational is making a decision based on an informed reading of the pros and cons of various possible responses, not on deciding to jerk your knee through the desk because that 'feels' right and just. A rational reading of the situation is essentially that which numbersman provided, if the sole pro to the cons of leaving children without a parent is "but it makes me feel better!" then you're not making a rational judgement at all, airquotes or not, but an emotional, stupid and utterly selfish one to service your own gratification; with a garnish of self righteousness to sweeten the deal. If you want to go all eye for an eye that's fine, ish, but at least don't dress it up as 'logic' or similar because it isn't.

Dunno, if Nonek is triggered by the condescension of holier than thou S1 Kosh he might be better off not watching. Spoilered for caution.

Ending Spending Action Fund is an independent organization that proudly supports candidates regardless of party affiliation who favor enhancing free enterprise and balancing our nation's budget. Learn more at EndingSpendingFund.com. So is this video made to support Sanders or to support other candidates (aka Clinton)? IIRC these people do this sort of thing every election. It's intended to be 'pro Sanders' (/anti Clinton) but not because they actually support him, they see him as a weaker candidate for the main presidential election compared to Hillary. They support him so as to ultimately have an easier job getting a republican elected later.

They don't have to be cheek by jowl style right next to each, point is obviously that you don't have a solely Russian border crossing into Finland- if there's a Russian border post then there's a corresponding Finnish one on the other side of the border. It's not that I am without sympathy*, though it is certainly more limited than the sympathy for somewhere like Jordan or Lebanon which are impoverished themselves, have a small population yet are coping with a million plus refugees apiece. But at the end of the day you (collective you) have to be responsible for who gets in and out of your country, that's a basic requirement of modern governance. If you aren't happy with the status quo then change the rules or stop accepting those you don't want. Deflecting the blame onto others and saying that they should do something about your problem is just going to get a 'no u' response from them, per both Russia and Turkey. *I even have a fair amount of sympathy for Turkey so far as having to cope with refugees is concerned despite my dislike of a lot of their broadly related policies.

The Russians would just send them back/ refuse to accept them most likely- as they've done with some of those Norway has tried to return. It's not like you have Russian border controls on one side of the border and empty space on the Finnish side or vice versa after all, border controls are reciprocal and you have posts on both sides of the border. Saying that the Russians should refuse them exit when you subsequently don't refuse them entry is a rather... specious argument. Russia has no reason to refuse them exit so they're free to leave, it's your (EU/ Finland) choice to then allow refugees access- if they tried it with China or, heh, North Korea they'd wouldn't be allowed in no matter if Russia was happy for them to leave.

Right, and Finland has no border controls themselves, with Russia? I find that rather hard to believe, personally. If it is, according to the EU, Greece's fault that so many migrants are entering there then it's surely Finland's fault for not defending their/ your borders as well, after all. I can only imagine the EU is going to start giving Russia money and trying to get them to join the EU soon, wonder where they got the impression that transiting refugees would give them leverage from... Typical westerners, complain when Russians build a wall to keep people in, then complain when they don't. More complicated than that of course and the issue has aspects that cover both morality (heh) and the cold reality of international politics, but the basic fact is that Russia is not the EU's friend so has no obligation to stop refugees, indeed they would have been criticised for doing so even up until very recently, and has motivation to be obnoxious and disruptive. Turkey on the other hand supposedly is the EU's friend, a member of their military alliance and a prospective actual member of the union which at least theoretically does give them obligations. Nobody really wants refugees- including one suspects, Merkel, at this point- and realpolitik dictates they'll be used to maximum advantage. It does also show why rewarding Turkey for encouraging refugee flow is a stupid idea, anyone could see that it would then encourage others to do the same. But when it comes right down to it it's your borders, ultimately it's you who are responsible for who crosses them. That may be a country specific you or the generalised you of the EU as a whole but either way border control is a basic responsibility of government, expecting others to act as your border police is pretty naive.

The only plausible bit about that (barely) is Turkey being ejected from NATO, and that really is barely plausible. Bosporus is too important strategically and NATO membership is set up very much as being an inevitability for any country anywhere near Europe except Russia. Chucking countries out even if they are drowning you in refugees/ helping ISIS/ provoking Russians/ attacking your allies in Syria directly ain't going to happen, those negatives simply aren't important enough and Turkey knows it. Indeed, they can expect general appeasement on some issues (refugees, contrast criticism of Turkey with criticism of Greece) rather than even mere condemnation. NATO would probably back Turkey even if they shot down a Russian jet that definitively hadn't intruded or had an aircraft of theirs downed that clearly had. That's one of the reasons it might be interesting if Russia ends up using the airbase at Qamishli (government held enclave in Syrian Kurd territory), that would give a very easy ability- though unlikely to actually happen- to shoot down the Turkish helicopters that have regularly violated Syrian airspace, or very publicly document and denounce them.

Turkey alleges another intrusion. Su-34 this time so a plane far more capable of defending itself than a Su-24, and convenient timing given that the Kurds have been formally uninvited from the peace talks. Which now lack 3 of the largest factions and look like being even more pointless than they looked a week ago. In any case, Recep wants me to tell you that he is still waiting for your call, Vladimir.

I haven't seen anything specific about that but while it should be a theoretical possibility it isn't like malaria where it's a chronic problem- it would likely be similar to something like chickenpox/ shingles where it's usually a second acute burst which may not even happen. Exposure to related dengue fever gives permanent immunity to the particular strain at least and that is a closely related virus, so it probably is the same for Zika. At this point there isn't even a definite link between the virus and microcephaly established, there's no need to panic.