Drowsy Emperor

Lol, tell that to the hundreds of american farmers who were systematically bullied, threatened, sued and ultimately destroyed by Monsanto using legal and illegal (or borderline illegal, like terrorizing people in the middle of the night by hired goons) methods.

I don't understand people like you. You treat the world like an aquarium that only goldfish swim in. When a barracuda comes you can only gape in horror as it chews you up. And yet you still continue to argue that we should all be goldfish as though that would make the barracuda go away. If there was but one more armed person in Norway they might not have had a Breivik. Is that an excuse to arm everyone to the teeth? No. But start living in the real world please. If self defense wasn't a necessity, guns would not exist in the first place.

Upgraded my netbook to Windows 7. It originally came with Win7 but I was appalled at its performance, and the lack of customization options in the starter edition so I downgraded to XP Pro 32bit. Now its running Win7 Ultimate at approximately the same level of performance as XP except its a bit faster.

Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg. I don't know what to make of it yet.

The weapons you should really be against (if the whole issue is worth it) are those like Mac-10, MP5 etc. Compact sub-machine guns whose only purpose is to unload a lot of bullets into the target as fast as possible. They really are worthless to anyone who is not a gangbanger. Not that its going to stop gangbangers using them. If you really need another example, after the wars in these parts practically every household had a gun of some sort. From handguns to AK's, from hand grenades to RPG's. I kid you not (I vaguely remember toying around with a deactivated hand grenade). And these are not households on the front lines of the war, no these are cities and villages that haven't seen any combat at all. War veterans brought a ton of that stuff back. And you know what happened? Nothing. Many people either kept that stuff in the attic, or gave it to the police for storage/melting down. No massacres, school shootings or anything of the sort. Some of those weapons were used in typical crimes, some of them were the cause of minor accidents but that's the nature of the black market and weapons in general (when combined with human carelessness). Yet another proof that having heavily armed citizens (even with military grade weapons) doesn't equate to an anarchic society. Its all in the upbringing.

Honestly it sounds like there is much more to their dislike for your wife than they're ready to admit. Many of the issues seem superficial, so they're most likely not the real reasons for the existing friction. Either that, or those are simply the sort of complaints people draw up when they don't like someone in general, but have nothing concrete to hold against them. Most likely both parties have an instinctive dislike and distrust of each other, but since they're not going to verbalize it, its grows the existing rift and makes social gatherings awkward. Its hard to see why they wouldn't all be able to get along if that was the totality of their complaints toward her. It would be unwise for this situation to back you into having to make choices, when for your sake, both parties owe it to you to keep their relationships civil. You should remind them of that and refrain from hasty decisions, if they managed 10 years they can do another 10 just as easy. And don't get defensive about your wife just because she's your wife and you love her. She should be able to resolve the matter herself in a frank and open conversation, (as should they) so the actual parties can settle their differences between themselves and not use you as a place to vent their frustration. A private lunch with you as the mediator should sort those differences out. Although if you're going to get so uptight about a few complaints and are unable to keep a cool head that might not be the best choice. The "meeting" should not be held now when everyone is uptight, but after a little while. The potential for it to blow up in everyone's face is at its highest at the moment.

While close range negates a lot of advantages of a rifle over a pistol it doesn't negate all of them. A pistol round is typically lighter and slower than a(n assault) rifle round and (all other things being equal) is far less damaging, at any range. Even limited to just handguns there's huge variation in survivability, eg a .44 magnum is far more deadly than a 9mm round. In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round. I've fired a .22, a .223NATO and a .303 (? Lee Enfield from WW2 anyway) and I have no doubt whatsoever that were I ever to be unfortunate enough to get shot I'd prefer the .22, at any range under the sun. Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon. They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context. I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US. I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun. From what I know of automatic weapons in the US, they were banned, and the only legal ones on the market are those pre-ban ones which are essentially collectors pieces that fetch high prices. At least that's how it used to be at some point. While there is no real reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon, all of them require a person a to pull the trigger, and if that person is an idiot then its equally dangerous whatever he/she is holding. Besides, in Switzerland everyone who has passed army duty gets one of the best assault rifles in the world to keep at home. I dont see the Swiss dying in droves because of it. So, one could argue that Switzerland is the most militarized country in the world... and one of the most peaceful at the same time. I don't think its peaceful because everyone house has a rife, but it definitely proves that gun ownership doesn't correlate directly to violence and crime.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not. https://www.youtube....h?v=f0BVxO_61HE A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position). That's a superficial and unimportant difference. A trained shooter with a Glock can kill a room full of people just as fast as someone with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an army weapon designed to kill people at a 100-300 meters. Those are the demands of modern combat. As most shootings happen at close ranges all the advantages of an assault rifle, its additional range and precision, are lost. When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly. In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters. Yes but the majority of people who commit these acts are not trained shooters, they are not military personnel . They are normal people who have suffered from a mental breakdown so once again the the choice of weapon is relevant to the overall causality list The point is not to have 19 dead instead of 23 but prevent these things from happening in the first place. You people seem to forget that if they can't get a gun next time they might mix up a simple bomb or something. Where there is a will there's a way, and if these people were lacking in willpower they wouldn't do the things they do in the first place.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not. https://www.youtube....h?v=f0BVxO_61HE A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position). That's a superficial and unimportant difference. A trained shooter with a Glock can kill a room full of people just as fast as someone with an assault rifle. An assault rifle is an army weapon designed to kill people at a 100-300 meters. Those are the demands of modern combat. As most shootings happen at close ranges all the advantages of an assault rifle, its additional range and precision, are lost. When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly. In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event? You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother. Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway. It might seem like its an issue up for debate, but its not. To prevent these tragedies (but without the illusion that they're ever going to totally disappear), should be the goal. Prevention consists of better integration of individuals in society, and better relations between them. A person that can spend hours contemplating revenge for sleights real and imagined is obviously stuck in a psychological dead end and only friends and family can dig them out of that hole. Not shrinks and particularly not tablets. When I went to an american school, though it was in Africa I quickly noted how extreme alienation could be. The cool kids and uncool kids syndrome left to some individuals being semi-permanently left out of school social life. The teachers did what they could, what they were paid for - but they can't fix that climate where genuine ostracism is practiced. On the other hand, we don't get that here in Serbia - there's the odd black sheep of the class but they're never really isolated from their peers. There has never been a school shooting here, and guns are semi-available (many people own them legally or illegally) - and we get as many crazies as any other society. The health system is falling apart and the institutes dealing with mental health are surely better funded in the US. So its not the availability of guns, and its not lack of therapy. Draw your own conclusions.

You'd be hard pressed to find a Sociologist with a degree to agree with you. The laws may have changed for those who were previously discriminated, but the story of modern society is one of ever tighter control over the mind and political liberty of the individual - worldwide, not just in the US. Manipulative techniques used by today's political and business institutions make Goebbels Nazi propaganda look amateurish.

Uhm, no. You killed innocent civilians, wrecked yet another country's infrastructure, instigated the murder of its head of state (regardless of who or what else he was) and installed a puppet government to gain a hold over its considerable oil reserves, amongst other things. No one with an above room temperature IQ is fooled.

Let me fix that for you:

Judging by what you intend to play you don't need more than a genius 5$ mouse. A gamer mouse is only useful for competitive FPS gaming, and even there I recall the most persistent players decimating everyone with the cheapest mice available.

Teflon stickers are easily available over amazon. Your mouse is probably suffering from the "gone out of fashion syndrome". The only cure is to spend a lot of money on your next mouse.

The guns angle is wrong. It serves no purpose but to drive the discussion into a dead end street. Psychiatric care too. These aren't typical psychiatric care patients, and they can't be treated by doping them up with whatever drugs are available. The root cause, amongst other things is the horrible social dynamics at play in school and in the office. Competitiveness takes precedence over cooperation and honest communication, getting results whether they be grades or profit over any moral dilemma and employee rights. The results are stressed individuals out of which a certain percentage will not be able to cope, of which the majority will behave in a damaging way to themselves (alcoholism, mood altering medication, drugs etc.) and a minority which will place the blame on society and snap back. Its the result of the system you've put in place (particularly the downward cultural and economic spiral of the west since the 70ties) and now you have to live with it. Its not going to get better and no amount of additional security or contingency planning is going to change it, until the state or a cultural [r]evolution enforces the notion that the dog eat dog rules and norms of business are not acceptable for societal interaction, particularly amongst children and teens who are not yet fully formed individuals.

Its still a demonstration of extreme callousness, questionable morals and borderline sociopathic behavior. That the general public doesn't feel that way and instead elects people of this caliber answers all the questions posed in this thread. Its oh so convenient that the "socially awkward", "loner", "unpopular" individual should be the perpetual monster. No need to look inward then, because that's surely not one of us, eh?

Its amusing how its always the guns that are to blame, as if they were anything more than a tool. Anyone who really wants to get a gun and go on a spree can do it, anywhere in the world, regardless of whatever law is in place. Serbia had a lax policy on guns during the 90s and the same restrictive policies most european countries have are in place now, and have been for a while. It made no real difference, except that it left honest citizens defenseless while the criminals are as well armed as they ever were. The issue in the US is not the guns, its the cultural acceptance of violence. The US embraces the idea of justified killing (you could just see the jubilation when Bin Laden was killed) and just wars - and the old eye for an eye principle.Every country in the world could be considered guilty of this at some point or another, but with the US its systemic. Taking a gun out to solve a problem may not be acceptable by law, but its so common that it can only be considered (at least partially) socially acceptable. So the logic (in the minds of these killers) is simple: They (whoever) wronged me > I'm going to get back at them > How am I going to do it? > I'm going to get myself a gun and shoot as many as I can Social isolation helps. The more modern a country is the more of the old bonds of extended families and such are broken. In a traditional society few people are really socially isolated - in a modern one, many are. Its much harder to snap and go around killing people when you know each and every one of your supposed victims. To wonder at the results of violence is the US is to embrace a voluntary blindness as to how violent and cutthroat the US system is, internally and towards other countries.

It was probably a mistake to not have a more powerful CPU, and again Nintendo focus on gimmicky peripherals for core gameplay, pressuring developers to support them. With that install base, with that amount of pain in porting to the Wii U, this isn't surprising. Hardware is not the issue, the CPU has been proven capable by the Wii hacker dude. You only need to look at Pikmin 3's gameplay videos and its pretty obvious that anything that works on XB and PS3 should easily work on WiiU. The issue is the install base which needs time to grow so that the cost of development and the risks undertaken are deemed worthwhile by dev studios. The numbers are looking good so far, but we'll be well into 2013 when they're as good as they need to be for major publishers. That's basically what Reggie Fils-Aime said himself.

That's good, it was a pretty interesting game. Although I imagine the lifetime sub folks are a bit upset about dropping a couple hundred on it. lol @ "a bit upset"

And I personally like the experience of going to a brick and mortar store and buying a game. I liked it more when the boxes were bigger, but its still less alienating from my pov than digital shopping.

What is it that Valve does right exactly, now that I think about it? They have a damn restrictive software platform with Steam, unlike say GoG games which might not have all the perks but at least you own the product you're buying and it doesn't need their software to run it. They haven't made a groundbreaking game since the original Half Life (and please let no one say Portal, the game is about the same length and quality as a well made mod). Excuse me, what exactly is restrictive about Steam? Um you can only play games you bought on it - through it as opposed to retail or services like GoG? You know, the sort of thing you didn't have to do for years before Steam showed up like having to run a client in the background just to get your games going? Look, I'm not on an anti DRM crusade. Since I don't care about multiplayer or game centric communities, or play games in several different locations Steam is just a pain in the ass for me without any real advantages. If you have a particular reason why Steam is so good, that's fine. To me it seems obvious that Steam is all about controlled distribution, a tool for the people making money in this hobby - not in any way about gamers. That's all well and good, I'm just not seeing real reason for enthusiasm, as a consumer.

What is it that Valve does right exactly, now that I think about it? They have a damn restrictive software platform with Steam, unlike say GoG games which might not have all the perks but at least you own the product you're buying and it doesn't need their software to run it. They haven't made a groundbreaking game since the original Half Life (and please let no one say Portal, the game is about the same length and quality as a well made mod).

I was going to say something of the sort but you just beat me to it. Seriously though, what's the point of a PC that can only run Steam and other apps Valve "generously" gives out. The only real incentive to get a console is because its: a) cheap (if you already own a TV, and the presumption is that you do) b) desirable exclusives I don't see Valve getting or making exclusives for their console and shutting themselves out of the PC market. I don't see PC users forsaking the platform's flexibility just to run Steam on it. After all the PC, through emulation - has the largest catalog of games there is. Everything bar a few PS3 exclusives and the new Nintendo console runs on it on through emulation or simply by being multiplatform. To dump all that just for Valve exclusivity would be beyond stupid.