Zoraptor

Person complains about slow/ crap internet, cue lots of oversized speedtest results. It's like some sort of law. Theoretically mine is 15Mb/s (well, it's a 4g modem but the tower hardware is HSDPA not 4g) synchronous so I'm reasonably well endowed at least for NZ, but speedtest never gets it above 8 even if in practical use it gets close to maximum when downloading. I did use to have fun posting my dial up stats with its unbelievably long 400ms+ ping time to win prize for worst internet.

Good luck doing that with what is basically a two foot (?) long rat. Even with Fallout (and Terry Prachett) extensively promoting the concept of rat as a tasty snack it'll be a hard sell... except for the name. I can see a big market for Nutria Bars/ Jerky as a healthy snack, the name just sounds so healthy. Not sure Nutria-On-A-Stick quite parses right though. (We can't even get people to eat rabbit, and they're both nice to eat and a noxious pest.)

I get discussing things you don't like. In many ways that is the essence of Criticism. I don't get playing games you don't like and know you don't like though, unless you're paid to. I've tried manfully to struggle through the tepid malaise that is Oblivion, but once I was convinced that it wasn't going to get better I just stopped. Having said that, one of the common rebuttals is "how can you say you don't like/ it's bad if you haven't played it (enough)?". To which the only sensible reply is "bro, I'm not going to waste my time playing something I don't like just to properly discuss a game on the internet", but all too often the Way of the Sky is taken and the game played extensively just so someone can comprehensively and authoritatively describe how much they hate it. And sometimes they stillget things so very, very wrong. Also, cricket is awesome. It's a metaphor for life, and speaks to the human soul.

Yeah, everything I've heard is that the DVDs of both the series and movie did well. It's never really clear whether that's relative (did well compared to viewership/ movie tickets) or absolute success though, and that's not what the numbers men look at when deciding renewal or sequels. I reckon that Firefly could have been successful, but probably not on Fox and certainly not the way it was handled there. Farscape and BSG did well enough to get multiple seasons and Farscape at least had a somewhat 'odd' premise (muppets!) as well. I realised fairly quickly that he's basically Avon from Blake's 7- perhaps my favourite character of all time! so not at all a bad thing- with a few more 'muscle' characteristics, much as Mal is basically Blake. They even used the premise of one b7 ep ('Orbit') as the background to a Jayne centric Firefly episode.

You managed to make me feel better about my miniscule data cap at least. (and that 4g satellite ain't. My 3.5G is faster than that by miles.)

There are a bunch of things that influence whether something does well at the box office beyond appeal and e-cred though. Internet buzz is definitely hit and miss, for every Blair Witch there's a Snakes on a Plane. The DVD sales and other media supposedly do very well, so it may be more that the people who like Firefly don't go out to movies much.

Friend Volo, you are leaving out the crucial factor there- they can handle two games at once (three now, I believe) if they are organised properly. It's the same for everyone, differing creative parts of the company come under pressure at different times in the dev cycle. If you have two games in development in similar stages you end up with the high demand times being nearly in sync as well and have to hire extra staff to cope with the spike, then lay them plus others off (or keep them at dollar costs) once the spike is passed. Not a good situation. Space them properly and you don't have to lay off, or hire, those artists as the demands fluctuate but are balanced as the two projects progress and you can keep the workflow at a reasonably steady rate. 5+ years to make a game is stupidly long. Being able to cope with that on a one off basis is not the issue, that that length of development time is wasteful and unnecessary- and that it then requires very high sales to make back the cash- is. Because if you take that long and don't sell well then you're in trouble, and a lot more trouble than if a 2-3 year dev time game sells equivalently poorly. And if the game sells well you get more money from the shorter time. FACT! r00fles!

Yeah, and so did Square Enix, Activision, 2k, Sega, Derp Silver, Bethesda, THQ, Infotari. Publishers gonna publish. I think what Allan is getting at mainly is that EA does bring positives as well as negatives. EA provided impetus to finally get DAO released, and the fault for it taking so long has to be Bioware's since they were independent for 80% of its development. DAO took so long that it nearly caught up with Mass Effect's schedule, which is bad for commercial reasons (potential overlap of sales/ publisher/ PR resources, concentration of revenue/ 'dead patches') and for production reasons (shared resources between ME/ DA teams coming under pressure at similar times, dlc scheduling). While it's possible to blame EA for not ordering more time for it there are very good reasons for it being that way- and a team producing a game every 5 years is not going to be commercially viable long term whether it's EA or independent Bioware. Also, many of the things people blame EA for are trends Bioware was following for ages. DLC can be traced back to the NWN premium modules, 'consolisation' to KOTOR, asset reuse to Mass Effect (1, and even on occasion prior to that).

Yeah, with statistics it's all about knowing the limitations of the statistics and the uses those statistics are put to. I have little doubt that the initial study here is flawed, but just about every statistical study is unless it's based on unimpeachable objective fact. Even statistics for reported and solved crimes don't qualify for this status since they're open to manipulation by police wanting to look better than they are and systematically under or over reporting or downgrading offences, may include both false complaints and genuine complaints that are withdrawn under direct or implied duress and a host of other factors. The only thing that can be done is to approach the question at hand as honestly as possible and to note potential sources of error and bias, something that any study with scientific pretensions ought to do. In this case you're dealing with two very large problems, human intentions and interpretations, and human memory. Even if you do take a good scientific approach there's still the risk of the media- or interested parties- embiggening the story for their own purposes. That doesn't really effect the validity of the statistics themselves though.

Yep. I presume the US version had an equivalent to Maddy Storin- intrepid girl reporter, well known gerontophile, mortal enemy gravity- as well as Francis U/ Frank U but the series has not arrived here yet and netflix has geoIP locking.

I really cannot see the US intervening now. I know they're still saying it, but it was a deeply unpopular proposition even prior to the current diplomatic initiative, and time will reduce both the impact of the chemical attack as a persuasion (that was months ago and we need to act now??) and the presence of an alternative 'soft' option will be attractive even to those that supported it but know their voters don't. At the beginning Obama may have believed that he could persuade people to action but that did not work even in the immediate aftermath, so there's little prospect of it working further down the line. He could still do it, unilaterally, but it would be political suicide and he'd be flushing the rest of his term down the toilet- and everyone, including the Russians and Syrians, knows it. I do think that the US got outmanoeuvred here. Russia seizing on Kerry's off the cuff suggestion allowed them to set the tone and pace of the discussion, we already have a 2 week delay come out of it. To keep control of the situation the US needed to do a 'proper' proposal with conditions set rather than a one sentence muse, as it happened the Russians and Syrians got in first so got to control the terms of the debate. I don't think the US administration will be entirely displeased even though it could have been handled better, since they must have been nervous at the prospect of intervention no matter what they said publicly, its only real negative is that it looks sloppy, for everything else it's just staus quo ante.

Steam takes 30% of the sale, which is why they should sell DD exclusively through Rockstar Social Club and keep 100% of the money for themselves!

I wish someone would butter my crumpets with flagrant abandon once in a while. Ah, yes. Truly tragic how she ended up, but the girl did have more daddy issues than a Bioware game so what can you really expect.

Sure that last one is a porcupine? Looks like a ring in from family Hedgehogidae to me.

I wish someone would butter my crumpets with flagrant abandon once in a while.

About the only thing that could explain the honey trap he fell for- who could have been Susan Boyle's sister- is if he only 'fell' for it, so you might be right.

Really? But everyone knows that Israel has nukes. It's more of a conspiracy theory to think they don't.

I'm really not sure that their stats/ approach are good. If you worded the question correctly you could have every drunken hook up in Newcastle/ Chicago/ Warsaw or wherever being 'rape', after all if you buy a woman a drink you're degrading her ability to make rational decisions, thus removing the ability for informed consent... and vice versa I guess.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Obama looks weak because he is weak. His natural instinct is to seek and build concensus rather than to decide stuff himself, and that approach is badly at odds with the (from the outside, highly disfunctional seeming) US political system which seems to reward people who do the political equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shout "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!". The really telling thing though is the troubles he's had selling his visions in this way even when he had majorities in both the senate (albeit not a supermajority) and house. This whole saga really illustrates that he just isn't very good at deciding stuff. He drew a red line then had to act when it was publicly broken. But it looks very bad because they're claiming that the red line had already been crossed multiple times, he doesn't have the backing he needs either from the public or lawmakers, his natural instinct was still to seek the warm protective blanket of Congress approval as legitimisation despite hinting that their decision would not be honoured, his team and his public announcements have been inconsistent in message and occasionally mutually incompatible and he's now ended up in a bail out option that certainly appears to have been an ad hoc solution prompted by one of his subordinates wandering (or wondering, even) off message again. Control of the issue has been handed to the Russians and Syrians on a platter, and he knows it. No number of deliberately inflammatory French draft resolutions will change that. In direct response to what Bruce asked, it is an approach that I like and I wish would be used more often, but with the proviso that there are obvious reasons why it isn't done that way. Politicians should seek the approval and consent of the people on significant issues rather than acting as an elective dictatorship. But the problem is that while Obama may have the best of intentions and want to check the democratic boxes the system he is operating in- and indeed, the system most politicians operate in- encourages and rewards intransigence; plus that approach is at odds with being an Executive who Draws Red Lines. They aren't really red lines if you're going to have to then ask permission from someone else to act on them. Syria won't fight Israel under pretty much any circumstances. They'd lose, badly, even if they weren't fighting a civil war as well, plus it would guarantee US intervention, even if you had a neo isolationist (Rand Paul? so practically unlikely) as President. You can make a nice parallel between Israel's 'theoretical' nuclear stockpile and Syria's 'theoretical' stockpile though-since they both exist for the same reason (if we look like losing a war we'll nuke Damascus/ if we look like losing a war we'll gas Tel Aviv), are both undeclared, both 'illegal', both never been used (r00fles!) etc.

Watching John Kerry's original 'proposal' live was unintentionally hilarious, as you could actually see him pause half way through, wince, and think "oh asterisks, I've really screwed the pooch here, haven't I?". Yeah, give the Syrians stall room anyone could take advantage of, give any waverers on your side a bail out option and give everyone else another reason to advocate delay. And all right before you're going to have Obama going on tele to try and rally support. While I'm kind of glad they've been so cack handed as it makes intervention less likely it does rather typify the entire Obama administration that they cannot even get the basics of propaganda/ PR campaigning right.

That's a pretty convincing argument, but up to a point. The other crucial aspect of why the communists ended up so dominant on the Republican side (at least up until near the very end) was that there were plenty of people willing to flock to, and die for, the banner of Communism, much as there are plenty of people willing to flock to, and die for, the banner of Islam. Getting people to flock to the banners of social democracy and moderation on the other hand is... more difficult, even if you do arm them better. It also doesn't address the 'will to power' aspect, the Communists in Spain were willing to liquidate anarchists and non Stalinist communist groups even when they were fighting the Nationalists as well. In neither the Syrians nor the SCW was there any realistic prospect of the rebels/ Republicans deciding to fight their most powerful single component group no matter what you give them, unless they really have to (ie it becomes an existential issue) because when it comes right down to it Christians, Shia or Kurds simply aren't as important as winning the war. As uncomfortable as moderate Syrian rebels or the moderate Republicans may (have) be(en) with aspects of their nominal allies they are still fighting, and effectively fighting, those they regard as their true enemies. If the Republicans had won the SCW there may also have been a second war against the communists. At least the Nationalists, unpleasant as they were, didn't immediately decide to have a Falange vs Carlist free for all once they'd won, and there's little prospect of that happening if Assad wins either- but if the rebels win then a fight for the spoils seems almost inevitable. So far from helping, arming the rebels is likely to prolong the conflict even further- and even if they 'win'.

While undoubtedly funny, in a way... "A first possible root cause of the failed deployment of the parachutes was announced in an October 14 press release. Lockheed Martin had built the system with an acceleration sensor's internal mechanisms wrongly oriented (a G-switch was installed backwards), and design reviews had not caught the mistake." ...it isn't like Americans have never made the same mistake. My favourite space failure (apart from spectacular generic rocket failures in which no one is hurt) is the Mars Orbiter that crashed into Mars at a ludicrously high velocity because someone decided to use pound seconds instead of newton seconds, something that would gladden the hearts of every high school science student who's ever made an SI unit conversion mistake.

Public opinion won't matter if it's decided that the strategic situation demands intervention. It is of course a lot better to have the public backing, and Obama would almost certainly have severe backlash if he ignored a no vote (which seems pretty likely in the HoR if the straw poll is to be believed) and in terms of public opinion even if he got it. But, if the decision is made that Hezbollah and Iranian involvement requires some sort of intervention then that is what they will do no matter what people think, in the hope that they'll be able to control the aftermath and get the 'nice' people into power. Saudi, Qatar and Israel won't agree on much, but having an Iranian crescent stretching from Lebanon to the Pakistan border is one thing none of them, and by extension the US, want. Then again, I don't think that the planned intervention is about chemical weapon usage directly, that's just a palatable topping, and that the belief from both Cameron and Obama is that when it really came down to it more people and representatives would rally around the flag instead of maintaining an uncaring or antipathetic stance towards the whole thing.

Stalker is a classic though- there's a lot of room to be worse than Stalker but still a good game. That's kind of the point of survival horror though. It shouldn't be a frolic through a field of bright green grass while rabbits and fawns frolic nearby. If you're not cowering in the Cargo Bays, if you're not wondering how you're going to get past all the protocol droids with 2 bullets and a pistol that's barely holding together but instead confident that your damage sponge avatar dual wielding unbreakable assault rifles with unlimited ammo can confidently kill anything with a stern look while you race around the brightly lit levels at top speed then you aren't playing a survival horror game. To have a proper, tense game of that type you really need a good number of things that can go spectacularly wrong since it isn't just the atmosphere/ graphics but the sense of barely suppressed disaster and impending doom which builds the tension- a controller you have no prospect of beating with your Makarov, an assassin cyborg you cannot see burbling away in the background that you know can kill you with a few hits, a gun that breaks at the most inconvenient time, an enemy that just happens to decide the small patch of darkness you're sitting in quivering like a jelly in an earthquake is the most fascinating area ever and which demands further investigation. Casual and basic has its place, but by definition removes game systems and hence things that can go wrong.

Ideally neither side would have chemical weapons, certainly. The problem with forcing it though is that it's fundamentally counter productive, because it while it looks good on paper to destroy the weaponry it isn't a realistic prospect. If the rebels have chemical weapons you've little prospect of hitting theirs (both because they're more likely to be ad hoc and, frankly, the west is unlikely to want to admit the rebels have them for political reasons), and if you try and take out the government ones you risk exactly the situation you most don't want- them being split up into lots of small dumps which will not be as effectively protected and will be more prone to falling into the hands of extremists, or being used as a matter of course by some local commander for that matter- or you might hit a dump with a bomb and end up Bhopaling anyone downwind. None of those prospects are very attractive.