Zoraptor

MS has haemorrhaged money on the Xbox from the get go. Even with the 360 they apparently did less well than simply leaving the cash in the bank due to the RROD issues, as when you're selling a loss leading console the worst thing possible is that it needs replacing since you didn't even make money on the first sale let alone the replacement/ refurb/ couriers etc. And the original xbox lost billions. Really though, MS is a perfect example of what happens when you live in a bubble and presume everyone wants what you want or what it's convenient for you to want, and where there's very little Criticism going on. I have a certain sympathy for them on some things- their original vision is exactly what the PC Gaming Master Race types think is awesome and is certainly profitable when (ex MS chap) Gabe Newell does it on PC, and kinect at least in theory should be a killer ap given how successful the original Wii was with its very limited kinematics. Given those examples they probably thought they were on a winner, shame for them that Sony was sensible enough to wait and then gazump them on every level from power to pricing to gamer friendliness. Then again I'm still butthurt about that ludicrous ribbon UI- and Metro of course, despite avoiding win8 so far.

Oh man, I really did suppurate your secondary fundamental, didn't I? Buy one of those inflatable donuts, I hear they help. To short circuit any further long winded silliness I'll also quote myself, just to make sure One of the factors making Obama look weak is that the alternatives are waving their arms and shouting about how they'd magically fix everything by just blowing up the right people; don't think Mr Cox is doing that to Mr Harding (shame his first name wasn't Red, then we'd have a near perfect description of his function in this argument) let alone in the ME, somehow. And, because they are doing so and their- candidate wise primarily McCain, Romney hasn't said much at all since 2012 though you can judge on what he said then and he too was a lot more interventionist than Obama, but there are plenty of other repubs with a word to say- pronouncements have no probability of being put into action we can make some judgement of the alternative while observing that direct comparison is unfair since their statements are empty of weight or real consequence beyond chest beating, unlike Obama's whose decisions have to actually be implemented. There's far more evidence behind McCain and the repubs in general being more overt and directly interventionist than Obama has been. And there's been plenty of 'what would Gore/ Kerry' have done stuff in GWB's time, a reasonable amount of 'what would GHWB/ Dole have done' in Slick Willy's time, a bit of 'what would Dukakis have done' in GHWB's time but a fair bit of (largely reverse) 'what would Carter/ Mondale' have done in Raygun's time- and beyond, for all those people who believe Raygun won the cold war single handedly. People judge people not just by the objective measure of history, as with Harding, Lincoln, Polk, Jackson etc, but also against the alternatives, and especially so when there has not been enough time to judge objectively via the lens of history- and even then you still get some 'but what if Lincoln had lost in 1860'/ 'what if Trotsky beat Stalin' scenarios. I don't like Obama much at all, he is fundamentally weak and vacillating, has consistently failed to deliver on promises while continuing destructive policies because they're too much work, he has little consideration for genuine liberty and failed to get much important stuff done even when the democrats had majorities in congress; but if it's his ME policy or McCain's (2008; the pre Rove shanking non crazy 2000 McCain, being another story) it's BHO every time, and twice on Sundays despite me not liking him.

Obama isn't someone I'd normally defend but his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives (McCain/ Romney; random Repub rep/sen) would have been if they had the power to do what they've said. Nothing like saying everything would be fine if they were just in charge and could magically bomb all evil doers with unmissable Righteousness Bombs for hypothetical scenarios. Pragmatically, and in hindsight, he probably should have left Gaddafi in power- there cannot be much appreciation in Washington for all those IS(IS) flags being waved in Benghazi let alone murder of diplomats. Bombing Syria when he said he would was already too late, taking the bail out may have made himself look a bit silly but may well have avoided making things even worse and that's a trade I wish more politicians would take. [This edit courtesy of my cat, who decided I was finished after 1.5 sentences and managed to click 'post' for me]

Because they had it labelled as an Su-25, even if it was an erroneous assignment? Until it does something an Su-25 cannot do that label would remain. Then anyone going back to look at it would see 'Su-25', even if it actually wasn't. The equivalent that I'd base that scenario on would be something like the Vincennes incident- if you looked at the radar playback I'd have no doubt that the Airbus there was labelled as an F14- erroneously, and you might notice the mistake that lead to that happening- but that is what you'd see. It's fairly obvious I'm deeply sceptical about scenarios involving an actual Su-25 though, I accept that it may be technically possible to have been one but I find it highly unlikely. I don't think that line of thought is significant. If they knew the specific missile via humint they wouldn't say to protect sources and to a large extent the specific hardware used is irrelevant for this scenario as any missile + cannon combo can take down an airliner; though obviously whether it was a SAM or air to air is critical overall. Mostly though, the Ukrainians claimed the previous day to have had an Su-25 shot down by Russian fighters, taken at face value they'd have strong cause to be armed with AAMs andor have Su-27s around. And if the plan was to stage a false flag or go after Putin then it's the ground ordnance that would be wholly unnecessary to the mission, not any air to air stuff. They may all resolve to one source, and though there are multiple sources for Su-27s being used in the relevant areas, and as per above, it would be an expected response to have fighters such as Su27s or MiG29s around if Russian fighters had really shot down a Ukrainian plane I'll concede there may well not be multiple sources for them being around on that specific day. But in any case, this could probably be cleared up one way or the other if the CVR and air controller data were released. Don't really know enough to comment, except that I took the first six aircraft to be the initial deployment only, and not necessarily the number present/ available now as tensions ramped up. So the two mentions of six aircraft may not be the same six aircraft- 6 out of the full Su27 complement on patrol would be perfectly doable.

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes.

Isn't everyone unsure of designations done purely via radar though*? Assuming they actually have video in real time from the Rostov radar station then I'd presume they would have labelled it as an Su-25 because they'd expect it to be one on a ground attack mission rather than a Su-27 or MiG-29. And there are alternative sources saying Su-27s were around. So far as I am aware while transponders give out that an aircraft is military they do not share their type, that has to be assigned. Otherwise I'd find it difficult to credit that the Russians would pick exactly the wrong type of plane to finger when they could as easily have said Su-27 or MiG-29, it's not like they aren't familiar with the aircraft's specifications. *Would have thought it would be easy to find out, but I obviously can't find the right terms to search for.

Of those, perhaps Morocco. Maybe UAE and Jordan too. Maybe. I know you love some Saud, but they don't love anyone who ain't Wahhabi (or Salafi, if you want to be in their good books) and love exporting that ideology to places that, surprise surprise, then get surprisingly well armed loony tunes Salafi extremists popping up. They also oppress their shia minority pretty badly, and even if you don't count their proxy groups they have directly attacked shia in other countries with their army/ air force- in Bahrain and Yemen. Qatar has few internal problems but is hardly tolerant, they also back the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, as well as extremists in Syria. Bahrain only has the Khalifas in power still because Saudi sent in x000 soldiers to crush the majority Shia. Jordan has problems with refugees of both the Syrian and Palestinian variety, albeit not sectarian ones, and the Hashemites are perennially weak and wobbly. Algeria, FIS, nuff zed; also AlQ Salafi nutbar Sahel branch is active there, eg the oil refinery seizure fairly recently. Morocco has had some problems too, but nowhere near as bad, and UAE supports much the same religious nutbars as the Saudis do, though they're at least theoretically more pluralist as they want foreign tourists. Really though, if you want almost totally stable muslim countries with passably pluralist policies you want... Oman, as per virumor. Maybe Morocco and Brunei as well, depending on how you weight the factors. And that is about it, sadly.

I don't think they're above doing it on moral grounds. It's the practical and political grounds I question. Too hard to keep quiet and way, way too much risk of blowback. While it's certainly not impossible, having Yatsenyuk or Poroshenko or similar sit and plan to actively shoot down an airliner and blame it on the Russians I simply don't find very credible at all, without significant evidence. They have as much right to be presumed innocent on this as anyone else has. It's one thing to get extremists to go off and fight and kill and die for you because you can guarantee they'll be committed to doing the job it's quite another to commit a deliberate act of war on the people you're relying on to bail you out of your mess, or on the neighbour you really want not to get involved if it was thought to be Putin's plane. If it were done deliberately I can only see it as having been done by a few people acting effectively independently- or as having been accidental, though obviously the current scenario under discussion cannot be accidental. As such, the scenario is most plausible with the perpetrators acting independently of political control, with a cover up afterwards. And even that isn't all that plausible at this point in time and with the evidence available, it's just most plausible.

I'm no expert, but I have been told that such things are actually very difficult to fake convincingly, because the blast decompression/ percussive damage which is evident on the wreckage has to happen after the shot damage, if it's really been shot, so you get scoring, fire damage, dents and the like occurring over the bullet holes. If it's faked, then that type of damage is almost impossible to fake convincingly. Certainly, obtaining a 30 mm cannon and firing a few shots would not do the job. Other sources do have Su-27s being around, and escorting other airliners. There's too little information to know, it's possible the Russians thought it was an Su-25 on a ground attack mission so assigned it as that when it was something else, or that it was an Su-25. If it were there at all. If it were an Su-25 it would certainly support it being a rogue operation, you wouldn't use one if you had a choice given the alternatives available. Can't say that I'm particularly convinced either way. The Russian version actually has rather more direct, concrete, evidence for it (amazingly) than the Ukrainian one as they have released actual pictures of Buks in situ in a relevant area and under Ukrainian control but that's obviously from a partisan source. The only 'impartial' evidence is on those roosterpit segments, and requires a somewhat convoluted sequence of plane shot by Buk, then finished off by an Su-25. It would explain some of the Ukrainian's behaviour and some of the odd omissions in evidence provided (no US spy pictures, no air controller voice, no CVR audio release) and why the Ukrainians are so keen to capture the wreckage that they're actively shelling it. But it ain't really convincing overall. OTOH the alternative relies on Ukrainian provided phone taps and social media postings when it might reasonably be expected that a 'smoking gun' could and would be provided via US intelligence assets, if it existed. The lack of any satellite imagery in support is telling. So neither is convincing.

It probably wouldn't have been an Su-25, it is relatively slow, and has a significantly lower service ceiling than any large commercial airliner. But Ukraine does have both Su-27 and MiG-29 which have a 30mm cannon, more than appropriate service ceiling and far greater speed. And you'd send them after a plane before a Su-25, which is more ground attack. It'd be completely bonkers anyway, as it would either mean a false flag op or an attempt to hit Putin, and either would be crazy. Though the alternative doesn't exactly make a lot of sense either.

Oh come now, hasn't Mario proven enough times that he can obliterate solid brick with his bare hands (he uses his fist, not his head as is falsely believed my most)? I would have figured he would have broken his hand many times over by now, so he's either hopped up on PCP, or he's got some kind of armored hand, maybe adamantium, like Wolverine, minus the claws. A wall should work- he's a major video game character so he will be dealt with in the traditional way of such things, via an inescapable, unavoidable cutscene. And as everyone knows, video game characters mysteriously lose all their pre developed powers when a story critical cutscene comes along. Main problem is that video game deaths tend not to be permanent, so extra vigilance may be required.

Indonesia has had some problems, though they are generally in abeyance at present- Ambon (and other spice islands) and the Bali bombing was aimed equally much at idolator Balinese Hindus as hedonist atheistic westerners. Plus various separatist movements, though that is hardly unique to muslim countries.

Mario was never a hero of the people, he was always a willing tool of the ruling class. What true advocate of revolutionary socialism would spend his time rescuing princesses, hmm? he should be setting their castles on fire and collectivising the ashes. He's a class traitor, a capitalist running dog and Mercedes Benz branding perfectly fits his true nature- I bet he isn't even Italian but is some sort of Brit putting on a 'comic' accent. Bloody Brits, don't get me started on that 'hilarious' Manuel from Fawlty Towers. Pah, Mario Kart 8, Super Mario Brothers- clearly he has had a cult of personality and delusions of superiority for some time let alone an apparent obsession with aspirational pursuits such as racing; and in his true nature he dreams himself our master. He's not even mere petit-bourgois, he is an out and out class oppressor. No need for the ice pick, all that is needed is a good stout wall.

Haha what? You really have no idea at all... Get a grip on history. How old are you? You should know better. Yigal Amir was a palestinian, didn't you know? Consider the facts, he came from the geographical region and he was a terrorist who assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister, so he must have been a palestinian- QED, people from palestine who are terrorists are palestinians, fact proven, give up now there is no counter argument. Though of course palestinians don't actually exist, they're not a 'real' people, which is a bit confusing, but never mind, in terms of logical disjuncts that's actually one of the lesser ones. Amir certainly wasn't a nutbar Jew like Baruch Goldstein intent on derailing any concessions as lieberal propaganda would have you believe, because that's simply unpossible! Snigger. Just shy of a month of proving that wrong.

Actually the moronic thing I was talking about was Danny Ayalon (?) deciding to be a dong and make the Turkish Ambassador sit on a kiddie couch while he was lectured like a naughty schoolboy, hardly likely to promote goodwill. The later MV Marmara was a whole different class of moronism. Never said it was humanitarian either, just that some of those killed were outright murdered and that is why relations are so bad. I certainly hope you meant 19th and 20th century there. But in any case, mass arab immigration and the 'terra nullius' argument have been extensively debunked.

Meh, I don't like Erdogan much at all but he certainly wasn't to blame for the frigid relationship with Israel. Israel started the whole thing with a truly moronic stunt and then outright murdered (note the number of times 'shot in the back of the head' turns up; you can also read the 66 page UN report on the matter if you want) a number of Turkish nationals.

They're the only neo nazi party in the rada, the others are just little or big N Nationalists up to some fringe fascists. That 1% was in the presidential election, it's a common talking point in defence of the Ukrainian moderation, but actually means nothing at all. Unfortunately for the spin, Tyanybok got 1% last time he ran for Pres too, in 2010, but then Svoboda got 10+% in the parliamentary election and won constituencies as well, in 2012, and is now the second largest party in the government. The 1000 encircled seems to be legit, at least, as even the Ukrainians admitted it and the maths adds up. What exactly happened to the other half who were trying to break out and the rest of the brigade (should be around 3000 men, if wikipedia can be relied on) is unclear, but it is pretty clear that a very significant number surrendered/ have been interned in Russia so it cannot have been going well. 2000 overall casualties- ie dead/ injured/ captured- might be marginally credible, 2000 dead certainly isn't.

I'd hesitate to describe recent paradox games as being simulators for much the same reasons I wouldn't label it as an RTS. Even EU2 with its more deterministic approach wasn't really a simulator, but the later EU games all have problems generating historically realistic or plausible results, and anyone going in with that expectation will be disappointed. That's because paradox themselves regard it as a game primarily, so make it literally impossible for things that happened historically to happen- and they insist on balancing for multiplayer rather than SP despite 80% of their users being SP only.

Does anyone use the PCGMR label in any manner other than deliberately ironic though? I certainly assume so, to preserve my positive and sunny view of humanity.

Any books by Matt Stover have strong thematic resemblance to Kotor2- Shadows of Mindor, Shatterpoint and Traitor. The last one is part of a larger series of 19 (?) books of varied quality but is probably closest in theme to K2 of any EU work, and has one character who is very reminiscent* of Kreia. *actually the other way around, since Traitor predates K2. As much as Kreia is similar to Ravel from Planescape Torment her philosophy on the force is very similar to Vergere's.

Yeah, for all the accusations that ubik was a kook he was certainly right about paradox nicking (or 'nicking', at least) lots of ideas off of Magna Mundi It's technically a TBS but the turns are so short it might as well be real time. EUIV is a quasi historical 'realistic' strategy game set from the late medieval through to the revolutionary ages. Describing it as a TBS or RTS tends to come along with rather too much baggage, it isn't an RTS in the sense that, say, Command & Conquer is and it isn't a TBS in the way that, say, HOMM3 or even CivIV is. Essentially it's a province based map system where you manage a country, building armies and improvements, using diplomacy, colonisation etc with whatever aims you set yourself. For someone who hasn't played a Paradox game before it is a little hard to describe, have a look at some youtube videos or similar is probably the best approach, or you can try the demo. Though if history is any guide the demo will be crap. Oh, and paradox keeps on tinkering and breaking stuff.

That's a(nother) scrap between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, similar to Egypt and various other places. Saudi backs Sisi/ ISIS- see, they're even palindromic, though I so hope backing ISIS bites them in the arse down the line- and Qatar backs the MB/ Hamas. Iran and Hezbollah were actually irrelevant, after the falling out over Syria Hamas was not getting any support there until the latest attacks happened. ISIS aren't terrorists in the classic sense anyway, as they are not trying to attain political change by use of terror, they're a revolutionary army of the Caliphate that eschews politics entirely and sees themselves as equivalent to all the best bits of Khalid ibn Walid, or Baibars and Timur. Then again I hate the term 'terror*' anyway, might as well use 'bad guy' or 'black hat' or 'big meanie poo' for all the meaning it actually has.

It's not really about winning militarily though- the Viet Minh and NVA lost pretty much (obvious exception Dien Bien Phu) every single military engagement they fought, against both the french and US, and lost around 2 million combatants when fighting the US over ten years, plus an untold number of civilians. They won because it became politically untenable for the US to continue, not because they won militarily. The closest recent equivalent would be the invasion of Lebanon in 2006, in the end the Israeli political will broke rather than Hezbollah's and they went back to status quo ante with a few thousand dead Lebanese and a few hundred bead Israelis. The Israelis certainly could have continued militarily speaking though. They aren't directly equivalent situations, of course, but you certainly can break an enemy politically while losing militarily. Personally I don't think it will work here because it'd take significant international pressure to achieve the more realistic of Hamas's aims such as lifting the blockade, and I'm sceptical about the effect even ten times more dead Palestinian civilians will have in that regard, but then there were plenty of people who thought the US could not 'lose' in Vietnam either.

No doubt people used the same argument about Ho Chi Minh as well- why doesn't he stop fighting the french, why doesn't he stop fighting the US, why did people keep fighting for him when he got millions of Vietnamese killed? Surely the french and US would stop bombing and killing, if only he just stopped? It's a National Liberation Struggle, unless you're really willing to go all in- either the 'good' way, or the 'bad'- then all killing does is make them stronger as the next generation has more dead friends and relatives, and more anger. Palestinians will not blame Hamas, they'll blame Israel because in the end it is Israel that is doing the killing and denying them the statehood they were promised 66 years ago.

Couldn't agree more. I like PC gaming precisely because it's an open platform with no central control, if I wanted a monopoly provider then frankly I'd buy a PS4 and be done with it.