Zoraptor

I'm always reminded when knees jerk up through tables over terrorism that the only act of international terrorism here was by the French DGSE, ordered by the French Defence Minister. What, exactly, the reaction to that would be in the current climate is really rather an interesting question, since it wasn't committed by the 'right' people to push any particular agenda- for the French not much except for the embarrassment of getting caught by crack counter intelligence agency the 1980s New Zealand Police and for us... well, I can't see us deciding to spend $150 million on monitoring people saying 'zut alors' in comical accents while wearing stripey skivvies, onion coils and berets on the chance they might be radical French agents bent on mayhem. They might enjoy all the back episodes of 'Allo 'Allo they got to watch though. More people die from just about anything other than terrorism, and there's already too much information. Both the Charlie Hebdo guys and this guy were already 'known', adding an extra order of magnitude to those 'known' is hardly going to improve matters, when the vast majority of suspects never do anything.

Don't know about sub Saharan Africans (the sugar digestion thing may well be lactose intolerance, which would actually lower weight gain from dairy foods and is highly prevalent in African genomes as well as fairly common in Asians) but Polynesians are certainly very prone to getting overweight, due to their historic diet being both very low in fat and having deprivation cycles from being on isolated islands; so the ability to put on fat as efficiently as possible in the good times is crucial. Here Polynesians are highly represented in poorer sections of society and thus tend towards eating fast or convenience foods a lot- which is bad for everyone if done too much but is particularly bad for them. Plus, due to the historic issues fat people are seen as being higher class, as previous only the very powerful got excess food. It's ironic though, because Polynesians tend to be extremely good at sports and extremely fit, so long as they control their diet.

Trying to hold Debaltsevo was foolish. The rebels retreated from Kramatorsk and Slavyansk in good order when they were obviously going to lose, that point passed at Debaltsevo a week or more ago.

It's CK2 and at least one other Paradox game, 'Lionheart'/ King's Crusade (albeit both have the original downloads still available) and gamergate has converted other titles to steam keys at publisher insistence- iirc both GTASA and GTAIV were direct GG downloads but the last patch converted them steam keys. There was actually a GOG thread in their forums with a list of the titles effected.

In all seriousness, I think I've been offended about twice in 21 years on the internet, though I may have professed to be so at people insulting my eHonour on occasion. And never here, even during rigorous debate on climate change. Well, it's probably a bit difficult to explain well, but I'll have a go. It is, of course, a fuzzily defined idea, and I'd freely admit the phrase I use is effectively a cop out due to that, but it's the best I can do for something that will always be doubly subjective: my guess of people's potential offence vs their actual beliefs; there cannot be hard rules on that. In the end the implementation of it is pretty simple, I weigh potential for offence against post value and try to maintain a balance between the two. If I think a particularly worthwhile post is also offensive I'll usually try and remove as much offence as possible, but in the end it is a balance. That process I see as essentially good manners and a matter of good faith. So, as a semi topical example I wouldn't post a Muhammad cartoon personally, despite believing that others have the right to, because I consider it is unnecessary and it is clear muslims find it offensive whether or not I do- and any point you can make by using it you can make without using it. Utterly subjective, based on my opinion, arguably PC- I don't really care, it's my view and I regard it as... dunno really, again good manners and good faith probably covers it. I have no problem with me voluntarily moderating my free speech because of something I believe. I've never been for all out freedom of speech as a goal in and of itself, ie saying whatever you want whenever you want to with full free speech protection for anything, and practically nobody is. Anything that causes objective damage to another- libel, or in the broader sense insisting you can smoke in non smoking areas- well, you're inflicting more than just your views on someone in those cases. It's the subjective damage which is always the question. It may be hubris but in the end I have to use my judgement on it as I hope everyone would. I also regard it as fundamentally reciprocal, neither I nor anyone else should censor others based on simple feelings. When it comes right down to it there are tools to allow people to ignore content they do not like beyond merely banning it outright- ignoring users or simply not opening threads. The alternative is like deciding the radio may only play elevator muzak because it's inoffensive and some people don't like the occasional heavy metal song, or country, or Bieber or whatever, when they can turn the volume down or switch to another channel. Not a perfect analogy of course, but the gist is there.

All of them are available steam free from alternative vendors such as Gamersgate, though Majesty 2 there at least had securom when I bought it. Of the ones listed that are actually Paradox Europa Universalis would have lowest barrier to entry, though I would rate Crusader Kings 1 as best overall its learning curve is near vertical. Majesty is also very good and easy to learn, but also very different from the others and most Paradox games as it wasn't originally a Paradox product.

Already own them all, though I couldn't find the Majesty CD last time I looked. And really, given Paradox's stated philosophy wrt DRM it should have happened years ago. Still, if Paradox allowed me to convert my copy of CK2 into a Galaxy/ GOG copy I might actually forgive them somewhat for trojaning steam into it.

Well, OK, since you asked. In the more meta way, I was obviously referring to the recently closed threads here. When will this thread get the Nguyễn Ngọc Loan treatment, and for what? We don't know- as soon as someone complains about it hurting their feelings? When someone repeatedly complains? That's a ridiculous metric for anything when you don't have to read the thread. But in any case, the implication is that if we don't make it 'inclusive' in some nebulous way- most likely which 'we' cannot control such as people with counter views speaking up- it'll go because the people who don't speak up think it's unwelcoming. Some women may be insulted by a robust discussion on feminism. Some will be even more offended if you assume that they're delicate snowflakes who cannot handle a robust discussion on feminism, or that such a thing will drive them from the internet. Which contradictory set of women should be catered for? Obvious answer, you never actually have any discussion because however you handle it someone will be offended. It's also why your definition is ridiculous*- if you're going to try to be PC it relies on guessing what other people think and what other people will be offended by. And, is very seldom actually held to by the people espousing it (often except as a means of getting other people to shut while feeling morally superior about it) so, with acknowledgement that you certainly have definitively stated that it's an aspirational aim that you don't always live up to, but as an illustration: Paranoia is a serious mental issue. Perhaps you should refrain from using it as a derogatory term in the future as well as retarded? Political correctness has a chilling effect on free speech because it is a nebulously defined set of non rules in which you are expected to self censor based on what other people may be offended by. It makes subjects taboo, stifles debate on others and is used as a crutch to shut other people up under the guise of preventing offence. It also tends towards being counter productive. Hurlshot wanted to know why feminism- which everyone said was a great idea alleviating obvious unfairness, up to a point, at which the debate began- was so badly received nowadays, and that, largely, is the answer why. Political Correctness too is actually a great idea, up to a point, but has a largely negative connotation now because it's passed the point where many people think it's reasonable. Most of all though, there is no right not to be offended and there should never be a right not to be offended as 'offence' is subjective and is often caused by simple disagreement. If one applies empathy evenly, to both parties, it becomes obvious that you have two options; both sides should shut up for fear of offending the other in which case nothing controversial will ever be said, or neither side should shut up and both should be OK with that. *I actually do try to follow "don't be needlessly offensive" as a personal rule, which is pretty similar- because by and large being offensive is counter productive as a technique and being needlessly offensive usually means you're actually losing as well. If I followed "don't be offensive" instead though I'd barely write anything at all because, well, someone will be offended at pretty much anything. [Edit: meta acknowledgement: Obsidian has no obligation at all to allow free speech on their own private property, and they don't actually need to have a good reason to nuke them either]

Really cannot agree. What exactly is he even bothering to ask the questions for if he starts an interview with "are you a pathological liar?"- that doesn't say that you're interested in answers at all, it very strongly implies you aren't actually going to believe any answers you get from said pathological liar. Plus, it very strongly implies that anyone reading the interview should not believe PM's answers either. And as I said before, one of Molyneux's big problems is that he does give interviews, and everyone already knows (realistically since B&W, or at least Fable 2 for the naive) he lets his mouth run away with him. He'd have had a lot less problems if he'd just shut up or if people stopped asking him questions- which would be the sensible response to someone who actually was a pathological liar, because you simply cannot trust them. His ability to convert the dreams and visions he talks about to cold reality has been very, very questionable for more than a decade. (If I were answering the interview my response to the first question would have been "Dunno, are you a pathological believer, John?". Then again, I don't like Walker and find he goes for easy targets and ducks the hard ones.)

Biggest consequence of political correctness? Chilling effect on free speech.

All? They tend to limit that description to western Ukrainians and the government, they certainly wouldn't describe the eastern Ukrianians as such. Yeah, but he lost them February last year when the coup happened and Yats and Turchenov decided to expedite signing of the EU agreement; not when Crimea regained its self determination and separated from Ukraine as it had tried to do in 1994- a legal process per World Court Kosovo- then petitioned to join Russia. The idea of Ukraine joining the EU- or even NATO- is now moot as well, can't happen while a bankrupt country is in a haemorrhagic 7% p/a depression and fighting. (Odd fact, New Zealand was close to joining the Eurasian Union, effectively. Not that I'd really class us as 'important', but it's illustrative. We almost certainly will too, once it becomes politically expedient- after all we haven't sanctioned them and they haven't sanctioned us for precisely that reason)

... "I find the talk of Russia shooting itself in the foot over [counter] sanctions rather amusing, frankly [..] That they [Euros] were dumb enough and had enough hubris to think there wouldn't be blowback [..] Overall, nice work , EU, now aim the shotgun at the other foot" It's still about the counter sanctions, and the assumption from the west that Russia would not do counter sanctions. Says nothing at all about whether western sanctions would be effective. Sheesh, I even use the same metaphor as bookends, connected entirely by agricultural based stuff. Oh, I said that stuff. We'll find out who's correct in a year. Tell you what, I'll even put 'money' where mouth is in bet form. If Russia is out of reserves within a year I'll change my avatar to an ostrich, for a year. I'm confident enough that I'll do so even if you don't match me. Still, I invite you to match that pledge, for if it's longer than a year. Oh ffs, if you insist and since this is at least relevant to something I have said instead of your imagination. Your figure, 30% price increase. My figure 100% increase due to exchange rate. Mr Kudrin, 40% of that due to sanctions which I'll assume is accurate for these purposes*, note bottom. Imports would still be 30% more expensive than the price increase even with that. That's why it's irrelevant, imported food would still be baseline 30% more expensive and could not do anything other than raise prices further if imports continued. That really is basic maths. Oh, and since I'm wasting time on your links: "Russia is poised to exhaust its two reserve funds in 18 months if oil prices stay at around current levels of $50 a barrel." Your own link contradicts your 6-12 months figure... "Russia will import 40 percent less foreign goods, which will contribute to the ruble’s stabilization. Russia’s currency, which has depreciated by at least 40 percent this year, will likely stabilize at the beginning of 2015 at its current levels, according to Kudrin." Ah, so he says reducing imports helps the currency. And what do the counter sanctions do? Yep, reduce imports. I really hope that isn't where the 40% figure you quoted comes from though. (*)Cannot find a reference to 40% of the currency drop being due to sanctions in either of those links and The FT link is borked in your post here so I cannot check, as you've C&Ped the abbreviatory elliptics into it- plus it's regwalled- so I'd request the direct C&P quote from that article where he says it.

Yes, I agree pretty much totally- it's certainly lying as he was factually incorrect. As you say, exaggeration is definitely a form of lying. But, I'd say that exaggeration is one of the most common and mildest forms of lying as well as one of the more understandable ones. I know I've done it plenty, both consciously and unconsciously. And you do quite often believe that the exaggeration is true yourself, that the fish really was that big.

Guillotine Gun? My mind, it boggled. Not sure if I'm disappointed or not that it's just a gunblade analogue, I was sort of hoping for a gun that actually fired Guillotines. Still, as a side effect I know about the might actually have been real Chinese 'Flying Guillotine', which I'm sure will be useful in future.

heh. I'll reproduce, emphasis added: Obviously about the counter sanctions since everything said is about agriculture (with one exception)- which are the Russian counter sanctions on the west, not western sanctions on Russia. The only other reference is to Boeing supplying aircraft and that not being subject to sanctions- which is completely accurate, Boeing is not covered by US sanctions. You could, possibly claim that I implied Airbus were covered, except for the if. So, about a dozen references to agriculture, and one to a specific part of the general sanctions where I was perfectly accurate about what was not being sanctioned.

Utterly irrelevant. And also from June 2014, before second major sanctions. Nope. Again, from June 2014 and again it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. Arguably a good further example of Yellow Journalism though, since the problem kg had was relying on analysis from 'experts' who didn't explain why pipeline costs should be levied against the Chinese deal but any Euro ones should assume the infrastructure was created by pipeline fairies for free. Which is rather like relying on 'experts' who insist that a 30% rise in food costs could be solved by imports when a halving of exchange rate means import prices would have gone up 100%... Another link to one of your posts, not mine. Oddly enough Bester disputes your point but I don't, except in the context of Russian counter sanctions. FTR: I don't have any sockpuppets, let alone one as low quality as Bester. Yep, proves I was talking about agricultural sanctions, per above. You know, the ones that have had no effect on prices as prices have risen less than the exchange rate would mandate if imported. Links to something Wals said, but since I'm charitable I scrolled down. Wow, a semantic dispute about what constitutes a 'current project'. Credit where it's due, that is actually about sanctions and is from later than August last year which is a massive improvement on the others but it does not change the fundamentals- indeed, what both kgambit and I said were compatible as we both agreed there would be no new projects. And I was correcting well known pro US, anti Russia shill oby initially there. Give kg his credit though, he's far, far better at this than you are- and far more honest about it to boot. Hooray for context stripping. To remind people, you were saying that Russia would be out of reserves in "six months to a year at current rate of spending". I handily refuted the "current rate of spending" pages back, now there's nothing else to do but set the alarm clock for early August- Feb 2015/6 and see whose experts were right, mine saying 18 months to two years or yours saying max a year. Whoever is wrong can feel free to admit they were an ostrich. You still haven't shown where I said that sanctions wouldn't hurt, only that the counter sanctions wouldn't hurt significantly. Until you do this is irrelevant and is rebuttal of your own imagination, not me.

Don't hold your breathe if you expect the left to be the ones to do it. If there is a push back; it'll be from the right. The Gamergate political compass survey was pretty left dominated- not as much as it was libertarian dominated but maybe 3:1 ratio. Though of course that may not be relevant/ directly applicable for universities and the like where most students (by far) are militantly uninterested in university politics- and PC's methodology may not be wholly unbiased- it does suggest that GG at least has been push back from the left. In any case the best approach is to just ignore the left right label and treat it entirely as an authoritarian/ libertarian axis thing. As much as is possible at least- says the guy who was describing Breitbart as at best enemy of an enemy a page ago.

Grom, your entire premise rests on you proving I said that Russia's economy would be fine, and providing the context. Post Proof Or Retract, Put Up Or Shut Up. No quotes -> Weasel and you arguing with your own imagination. Which logically means the ostrich/ loon hybrid is... you; I guess sub conscious self awareness is better than no self awareness. And yes, timing and quotes/ cites do matter as it provides crucial context and prevents selective. To illustrate: I could dig up posts from people saying that the 'ATO' would be over in August last year with Ukrainian victory. Well, clearly all those people must be ostriches, as it ain't over and Ukraine has lost lots of territory since then. Nope. Anyone who said something like "this will be over in weeks unless Russia intervenes" was correct, broadly speaking and certainly in the consensus of opinion; that is why context and quoting is crucial- and why I suspect you're so frightened of providing actual quotes, you're just regurgitating the first part with no qualifier. If I claimed Joe Bloggs said "this will be over in weeks" and he actually said "this will be over in weeks unless Russia intervenes" I'd be the Weasel because I'm saying he said what I would like him to have said, not what he actually said. But it isn't me doing that. Anyway, since you're clearly not going to provide actual quotes discussion should probably go back to what is happening in Ukraine, where the ceasefire seems to be holding. Or about as well as the last one did, only with Debaltsevo instead of Donetsk Airport (which the UA should have withdrawn from under the first ceasefire conditions but didn't)

This reminds me that while Ken Levine didn't criticise games journalists for the SVU thing he did have one of the better responses to it: (minor sexy lady warning on his link; would probably get a KaineParker thread shut down)

Nope. You've asserted what my opinion is without evidence and are busy 'refuting' that with your 'proofs'. Here's how it works, you find posts that illustrate what my view is, and quote them. Until and unless you do that you're just arguing with your own imagination. For example, these are your assertions from the last two pages: Where?* Where?* Which ostrich routine, where**? Hmm, maybe ostrich means I actually didn't actually reply at all... Which would mean you really are arguing with your imagination. Ah, proof, at last! Except... it's a link to one of your own posts and there ain't a relevant post of mine within pages. Well, except the one I've already proved I'm right about. Actually respond with some proof, links, evidence or whatever that I've said what you claim and what (you think) my views are. Until you do that you've been Weaseling and/ or Strawmanning; repeatedly 'refuting' something I've apparently only said in your own mind. Sheesh, I'm not even clear on what you think I've said due to your lack of actual quotes so even if I wanted to 'refute' your imagination there is, literally, no way to do so. So no, I'm not going to respond to you refuting an imaginary me, it's both pointless and enabling. Come back with the quotes from me and I'll clarify or defend them, I may even admit that I was wrong as that has been known to happen. Without those quotes though... well, no point. *Dates here are significant, too, as: **Oh, June 2014, before the main bank of sanctions in August and before the Russian counter sanctions you were insisting have raised prices independent of the exchange rate. Even if you could provide cites you'd be assuming I'm prescient about those future sanctions.

Probably should be noted that he is, iirc, a former WoW developer, albeit main designer of vanilla. I can't see many currently involved industry people except perhaps some of the east europeans saying something so critical of the press since they mainly want them on their side still.

le sigh. They have a near trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund- I did kind of mention it. With a population of, what, 5 (?) million that gives the best part of 200,000 USD per capita in reserves. And really, it's your example, you should at least have some basic knowledge if you're going to try and prove a point with it instead of relying on me all the time. As for other countries that depend on oil they either have major other historic problems and currencies that were already severely depressed/ controlled (Venezuela, Nigeria; which has dropped by roughly a third from their already low level anyway) or they're gulf (or equivalent like Brunei) states that have massive cash reserves (both absolute and p/capita) and, most importantly, very cheap production costs that mean they make money even at $50 a barrel. And still no links to me saying what you claim. Well, if you can't win an argument any other way making up stuff you wished the other guy said is one way... well no, it really isn't. Post Proof or Retract, Put Up Or Shut Up etc etc. Until you do, it's classic strawman. If you do actually bother to look- and I suspect you have and just plain didn't find what you wanted- you'd probably find something along the lines of what Gorgon posted a few posts above: the sanctions won't do anything to stop Putin because he sees Ukraine as being existential to Russia. It would explain things if you simply stopped reading at 'anything' and then built your entire premise on that, though.

I think the point is more that Kotick would laugh in Walker's face then (metaphorically) drive off in his gold plated Bugatti Veyron if asked those style questions; or never give the interview in the first place rather than Kotick not deserving any criticism. Molyneux is an easy target as he has no credibility to destroy and no power whatsoever, one of his major problems has always been that he does answer questions and has a distinct tendency to over egg his responses and promises, so it is easy to ask those questions of him. It would be significant if Walker asked the 'hard questions' of someone with actual power or who he actually likes, but I find it difficult to see him asking, say, Tim Schafer if Starbase wotsit etc makes him a pathological liar.

Bruce, dear fellow, you agreeing with me is one of the things that would get me to question whether I was right. Fortunately, your opinion just reinforces that I am accurate. Gromnir know! Gromnir not need to prove! Man, what an utter, utter cop out. You asserted so either provide the evidence that I said what you claimed- or admit you're a Weasel and in future refrain from asserting what you cannot prove. Since you brought up Norway: here's the graph of the krone over 1 year. It too mirrors the oil rate pretty closely, without sanctions. There are a few articles about it, but the big difference is that Norway is a small country of a few million with the best part of 1 trillion dollars in its sovereign wealth fund. And yet they still saw their currency tank. You can't pick a good example to save yourself.

So far- for some reason- you've linked to what you've said only and the sole semi relevant post by me nearby was stating that Russian counter sanctions would have minimal effect on Russia and more on the producers sanctioned. Which you have spectacularly and utterly failed to show was incorrect. All you're doing now is mere assertion that I said something you want me to have said. I see no reason to respond to your strawmanning with anything other than simply ignoring it. It is, after all, quite easy to use the 'quote' function or links to show what someone actually said, indeed I do so below. You want to show what I actually said instead of what Grommy's mind version of zor said- then I'll defend or clarify my views. So let's recap what you've actually and provably said before you started, again, digging up the goalposts and shifting them/ making assertions with no proof. At current rate of spending- your words, not mine; your fault, not mine- reserves will last far, far longer because the current burn rate is around 10 billion a month and they have 376 billion in reserves. I'd be perfectly happy with the general consensus of 18 months to 2 years, but you had to go all in on hyperbole- even when given the opportunity to clarify you doubled down, cutting it to the least optimistic six months. Followed by laughable economic ignorance about the exchange rate's effects, utterly laughable. That it is apparently mirrored by 'experts' is no real excuse- it just shows a lack of critical faculty and need to appeal to/ kowtow to authority. Fundamentally, you have to show how having western food imports would improve prices and you simply cannot due to the exchange rate change. FFS, even imports from non sanctioned countries like Brazil will have increased in price because of the exchange rate. I'll throw in a complementary extra illustration: Bloomberg chart of rouble to oil prices- sanctions and counter sanctions applied March and August. As anyone can see sanctions had sweet asterisk all effect, the exchange rate almost perfectly matches oil prices- which is independent of sanctions.