Elerond

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions. So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ? I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in In statistics they have most clocked workhours, but that don't necessary mean that they are most productive with their hours. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17155304 Also it should be noted that all the numbers in statistics in this subject comes from national statistics and surveys, and that there isn't some common methods or standards in how this are or should be done.

And where do you think they got their data from? The calculation of the size and development of the shadow economy is done with the MIMIC (Multiple Indica-tors and Multiple Courses) estimation procedure. Using the MIMIC estimation procedure one gets only relative values and one needs other methods like the currency demand approach or the income discrepancy method, to calibrate the MIMIC values into absolute ones. For a detailed explanation of these calculation methods see Friedrich Schneider, editor, Handbook on the Shadow Economy, Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing Com-pany, 2011, and Friedrich Schneider and Colin C. Williams, 2013, The Shadow Economy, The Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA, London, 2013. The calculated values for 2014 are projections for some countries, for 2015 they are projections for all coun-tries, based on the forecasts of the official figures (GDP, unemployment, etc.) of these countries.

Estimated shadow economy sizes for OECD countries from 2003 to 2015 http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Schneider/files/publications/2015/ShadEcEurope31.pdf

Ready yourself to read quite lot text, lower space, need to control multiple characters at same time. Basics are similar, create character, try to find best equipment that supports your build, kill monsters (although game focuses more on quest than killing enemies).

Steam http://store.steampowered.com EDIT: You need to activate the key in you steam client to add it your collection. [Games->Activate product in Steam] EDIT2: If you want to give feedback about Paradox store, I would recomend to use their forums, because then it is much more probable that somebody who actually works with Paradox store reads your feedback.

There are more. The Company which bundles it for the mac appstore and now new the region exclusive South Korea firm (which sells steam keys). Steam key sellers aren't digital distributors (because it is Steam that distributes the game, not the key seller), but it seems that Mac Appstore (and it is Appstore that distributes the game, not the company that put it in there) is also digital distributor for the game's mac version.

Then they could all be elves, or dwarves etc and so forth. I pick human because in appearance humans predominate (by far), but either way they function as a single species not many, they don't have different inherent natures in areas or approaches to things (they function, live, socialize, have families, houses and craft and think and have the same beliefs and traditions) as the predominate humans in game. They have no to little discernible ancestral differences with the humans. There is nothing which marks them out as a seperate species, they functionally aren't, there is just pkayer race species with tge sub-class in the orlans. And with even a single race/species I woukd hope there woukd be diversity in beliefs and worldviews but with the aopereance if different species it becomes more noticeable. Everyone has and shares the same essential worldview (with just shades of variation within that). While different abilities is nice that can be achieved with a single race/species from different lands (for example Elder Scrolls ganes different types of human or different types if elves have quite different bonus abilities). It doesn't require other species, just different areas and cultures in fantasy world, which again leaves me feeling the races are just purely cosmetic there for the player creator, and because they are in tge IE games but not even having the admittedly at times superficial reality and substance they even had there. They are just like masks thown on a few humans in the game to keep the masquerade going but have no reality (even superficial) in the world that there really is largely one player species with sub-species in the orlans. It just seems so pointless and a waste when if you wanted just cultures of a single species you coukd focused on that and made that more in depth, diverse and interesting, or developed interesting races, as it is I just see the races as meaningless with no substances who are there for the creator creator. What you describe is cultural assimilation (people who live generations together will eventually merge their cultures to one new culture), but if you actually read PoE's lore you will find that every race has different ancentsty (actually multiple different ancestries as races in different regions don't actually share that much same ancestry). And there are quite lot of things that points that races come from different species, like for example fact that they can't reproduce with other races, and if you look you will see that this fact has impact in how societies in Eora work. Also different cultures have different beliefs and in different cultures different races are the predominant race.Freepalantine of Dyrwood area where most of the game happens is predominantly populated by humans and second elves, because it is mainly populated by settlers from Aedyran Empire, which is mainly nation of meadow folk and wood elves. Second area where player gets in the game is Eir Glanfath territory where wood elves are predominat population seconded by wild orlans and thrided by heart orlans. Vallian Republics would be south from Free Palentine, but PC path never goes there, but it would be society where predominant race is ocean folk seconded by mountain dwarves. The Great Kingdom of Rauatai for example is described to be quite different of any of societies that you find in Dyrwood area, and their predominant race is coastal aumaua. And every single one of previously mentioned cultures have different dynamic between races (although only cultures in Dyrwood area are fleshed out fully, where other cultures have only general description how they work).

I like PoE's approach towards races and cultures, because it opens way to much larger variation of cultures and societies, than the classical fantasy style to tying race and culture together, as now we can see multitude of different cultures that have different approach and customs to handle their mixed race populations. Where PoE lacks in this aspect is that it sets only in Dyrwood area, which is newish colonial frontier area that really lets us to see two different cultures, even if one is mix of multiple different cultures that are evolved to new culture. Although game offers us climpses to other cultures in the wolrd, but those climpses come really through singular sources, which means that we really don't get to know those cultures that well. Which is why I hope to see sequel to PoE that set in some other area/s with different culture/s so that we can see differently build mixed race societies.

Paradox store sells Steam keys. There is three different digital distibutors for the game Steam, GOG.com and Origin, which all in my knowledge take about similar slice of selling price to them. It is difficult to say what is key stores' cut, but I would guess that amount of selling price that Obsidian gets isn't higher (probably less) than what they get from purchaces that are done directly from distributors' own stores.

Official have now over decade hunted and closed down servers which content they find objectionable even though in most cases said content has been legal in countries where servers located. Although governments have tried their best to make officials job easier when it comes such closures.

That is true to only some extent, although taking some care when selecting where you put or where you rent your server you can get much more leeway (because you get more time to move your before it is taken down). Of course most people will never say/publish/write/etc. such things that get official try to take it down with every legal and sometimes illegal means.

Racism is societal issue, which makes it quite complex topic. In simple it is that people discriminate and/or persecute somebody because of their perceived "race". But it becomes much more complex and harder perceived issue when you take account history of society and systematic issues that history causes. So for example minority group of people that has had lesser rights than other members of society and have been persecuted by other members of society in past and still some of majority population see them as outsiders or members of society's unproductive members like for example The Finnish Kale (Finnish Romani people), such groups of people often have quite lot people that fester resentment towards members of majority population, because of history and their own experiences with some members of majority population whose acts have proven to them that their prejudices towards majority population are justified. Such prejudices can be called racism, but it is quite different level and born from different place than prejudices of people on other side of this equation. And because of this difference between these two prejudices societies that try to amend their past sins commit sometimes something that sometimes is called positive-racism, which simply put means that members of minority groups, that have in past been (in current view of society) treated in manner that is unjustifiable and wrong, sometimes get preferential treatment, which can for example occur in such that their racial motived crimes towards majority population aren't called hate crimes or crimes against them are more probably be called hate crimes. These are systematical problems, but are they systematical racism towards majority population or just different form of systematical racism towards minority population caused by society trying to atone its past sins?

Yes, but the laws coming from the EU are not made by elected personal. If they conflict with the rulings of your country, you still have to bow to them because EU´s constitution overrules that of the nations. Not to mention the pressure they use. Examples, blocking south-stream effectly costing our country millions if not more and many jobs, or trying to pressure Hungary into a different energy market despite their contracts with Rosatom. Or overruling our exceptional good laws on animal protection, throwing us back years in that field. Laws coming from EU are made by European Parliament, which is elected by citizens of member states of EU and Council of Ministers (which is formed from members of National Governments of member states of EU, National Governments are elected by National Parliaments which are elected by citizens of individual states which parliament they are). European Commission, which is elected by European Parliament, proposes laws to European Parliament and Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers have ability to stop any law they don't like (of course this don't mean that majority of EU's member states can't decide something that minority object, but that is realities of democratic decision making [there is also blocking minority system where at least four member states with 35% of EU's population can block legislation approved by majority vote {55% of member states and at least representing 65% of total population, or 72% of member states and covering at least 65% of total population if they aren't acting on proposal from European Commission}]). EDIT: And it probably should be pointed that anything that comes from EU is not really law before National Parliaments have adjusted them and approved them, although if member state don't change their laws according to what is agreed, then European Commission can start action to resolve situation if this don't lead agreement then European Commission will start infringement procedure which is at end resolved by European Union's Court of Justice (Of course member state can decide to leave union if they find it decision to be too much against their self interests). In other words, it's basically the bureaucracy that decides everything, and individual votes have no actual say in how it all runs. One could say same about nearly every democratic system that there is.

Yes, but the laws coming from the EU are not made by elected personal. If they conflict with the rulings of your country, you still have to bow to them because EU´s constitution overrules that of the nations. Not to mention the pressure they use. Examples, blocking south-stream effectly costing our country millions if not more and many jobs, or trying to pressure Hungary into a different energy market despite their contracts with Rosatom. Or overruling our exceptional good laws on animal protection, throwing us back years in that field. Laws coming from EU are made by European Parliament, which is elected by citizens of member states of EU and Council of Ministers (which is formed from members of National Governments of member states of EU, National Governments are elected by National Parliaments which are elected by citizens of individual states which parliament they are). European Commission, which is elected by European Parliament, proposes laws to European Parliament and Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers have ability to stop any law they don't like (of course this don't mean that majority of EU's member states can't decide something that minority object, but that is realities of democratic decision making [there is also blocking minority system where at least four member states with 35% of EU's population can block legislation approved by majority vote {55% of member states and at least representing 65% of total population, or 72% of member states and covering at least 65% of total population if they aren't acting on proposal from European Commission}]). EDIT: And it probably should be pointed that anything that comes from EU is not really law before National Parliaments have adjusted them and approved them, although if member state don't change their laws according to what is agreed, then European Commission can start action to resolve situation if this don't lead agreement then European Commission will start infringement procedure which is at end resolved by European Union's Court of Justice (Of course member state can decide to leave union if they find it decision to be too much against their self interests).

It doesn´t matter if the member states are democratic when bruessel isn´t. not hard to understandt. and right now the EU in bruessel (hey america here you can drop your bombs than EVEN i will thank you) dictates everything. From small business taxes, smoking rules, to exports to russia....also still bound to a currency that will ruin us. That **** Nuland said one thing right..**** THE EU. But also the US. If you look every governing institution in EU is such that its formed by democratic process or by another institution that is formed by democratic process.

Austerity don't make economies grow, it has bad habit to do absolute opposite, but austerity can be only method to correct country's economy when their public spending is larger than their income. Greece in situation where it is because its public spending was much larger than their actual income and they just borrowed more and more money enable it until point where loan markets said they will not anymore give loans to Greece with such interest rates that Greece has any ability to take more loans and still continue to run their country. Which is where Troika come in and lend Greece money to pay their previous debts and gave them ability continue to run their country. But Troika was evil and put terms to their loans which dictate that Greece should cut their public spending and rise their income. Greece's attempts to do that failed and Troika become more evil and created the austerity plan themselves that Greece should follow if they want additional loans from them, Greece accepted this plan (they really didn't have choice at the time), Troika's plan was quite harsh and Greece government mostly failed in their attempts to increase incomes through taxes (quite lot people blame Greeks habit to avoid paying taxes), which meant that cuts in spending were much larger than what was meant. These harsh cuts caused people of Greece first change their government and then reject Troika's plan. And now Troika is asking Greece to offer them alternate plan that would balance their economy. EU is union of countries that we claim to be democratic (because its membership rules state that member state needs to be democratic) and it is governed by National Parliaments (which should be selected in democratic elections), National Governments (which are usually formed by National Parliaments according to election results), Heads of Governments/States (presidents, prime ministers, chancellor(s), which are elected in their own elections or by National Parliaments), European Parliament(members of this parliament are elected in separately held elections in every member state), European Council (is formed from Heads of Governments in such manner that every state has one member, even if they have multiple Heads) President of European Council (is elected by Heads of Governments/States), European Commission (is proposed by European Council and elected by European Parliament), President of European Commission (is proposed by European council and elected by European Parliament, becomes after election a member of European Council), Council of Ministers (is formed from members of National Governments, Conveys in varying compositions depending on policy area, each member state is represented by one member per department), European Court of Auditors (is proposed by National Governments, elected by Council of Ministers, each members state is represented by one member), European Court of Justice (elected by National Governments, each state represented by one member), European Central Bank (is composed of representatives of National Central Banks and it board is elected by European Council on proposals of Council of Ministers). So EU is democratic mess which rules can put some constraints in self-rule of its members states.

I am not sure how things go in USA (although I know you have some sort plea bargain system, where person can plead guilty without trial in hope of reduced sentence, and in my understanding that is procedure that is used to solve majority of criminal cases in US), but at least in Finnish legal system one can make deal with prosecutor where they confess their quilt and prosecutor offers sentence that is usually lesser than what one would get if they deny their guilt and would still find to be guilty in court. But of course prosecutor can decide not accept confession if they think that it isn't real or one's counselor can object the confession on several bases (like mental illness) or oneself can withdraw or deny their confession, which all will lead that court need to decide basing on evidence if confession was real or not, but presumption is that confessions are real if somebody don't object them. But of course one can't get marked as guilty by legal system if nobody rises charges against them, even if one confess their crimes and shows solid proof about their guilt. But in my opinion that don't make them any less guilty legally, it just mean that system don't probably work as it should. But I agree that it is quite pointless to argue about semantics how legally binding confession is, as my original point was that calling Cosby rapists isn't injustice towards him as he has confessed actions that are defined by law as rape in at least some parts of the world.

In Finland that would mean that he raped those women if he had sex with them after giving quaaludes, because they are in state where their control over their body and mind are severely impaired, meaning that they can't give their consent for any actions after the fact. So his confession means to me that it is OK call him rapist regardless what US law or courts says about it, because he confessed action that would be counted as rape in country where I live. Of course if he can prove that women consented to unconscious sex before they took the drug, then situation is of course different, but I have not seen any such proof from him. I never said you couldn't hold a personal opinion, did I? All I said is that there hasn't been a legal finding (even the case where he made his admission was settled out of court, so ultimately he still stands innocent legally, as I understand it) and that an accusation isn't proof that something happened. But confession (admitting to give drugs, that remove their ability give consent, to women before having sex with them) is legal finding even if it isn't enough to convict because of legalities of area where it (confession) was given. My comment was about Cosby's confession not accusations against him. It is that person who confess crime that they did 20 years ago, but which prosecuting time is only 10 years, they are still guilty in that crime even though legal system can't give them punishment for that crime. Meaning that if person confess to do something then we can't any more say innocent before proven guilty, because they willingly admit their guilt, then it is more of issue can legal system administer a punishment for that act(s)/crime(s), but legally person is guilty to crimes they confess until it is proven that they didn't do them or they withdraw their confession.

In Finland that would mean that he raped those women if he had sex with them after giving quaaludes, because they are in state where their control over their body and mind are severely impaired, meaning that they can't give their consent for any actions after the fact. So his confession means to me that it is OK call him rapist regardless what US law or courts says about it, because he confessed action that would be counted as rape in country where I live. Of course if he can prove that women consented to unconscious sex before they took the drug, then situation is of course different, but I have not seen any such proof from him.

By all means, hold referendums throughout the EU! That would of course inevitably lead to the immediate breakup of the EU. Yes, that would be democracy. At its worst, democracy is the rule of the stupid, the cowardly and the selfish. In spite of that, I would never dare claim that German taxpayers shouldn't have a say in how their government spends money. What is your point? Some things are too important to decide democratically? Might as well boot up Skynet already. Point is that even though that Greece is independent country, they are part of union which they joined voluntary and which rules they now have problems with. So when they organize referendum where they ask should they follow rules of that union or not, then question rises how democratic that referendum is when citizens of other member states of the union aren't part of that referendum, because as referendum now stands it is minority of citizen of union voting about how much rules of the said union tie them and still assume that other member states of union still follow rules of as they currently stand. Of course this is whole thing put in very simply and really don't reflect reality as it is, but it reflects as much reality as claims that Greece referendum is some sort example of democracy and people's will. If topic of Greece's referendum would had been do Greece exit said union or do they continue be members in said union then it would had been much simpler issue and one that definitely is something that people of Greece have right to decide, but as it now it is very difficult to say what referendum was about in first place and was it about something that is matters of Greece or something that is matters of said union. And yes I think people should have right to say how their governments spent their money, but I also acknowledge that when country is member of union that it has voluntary and by democratic process joined, then people of that country/state have voluntary relinquished some of their ability to control how things are run at least as long as they continue to be members of that union. And I would say that somethings are too complex to decide with direct democracy, because people don't usually have enough knowledge about those subjects to cast informed vote which is why most democratic countries use representative democracy and people usually only vote about their representatives and issues that would fundamentally change how country is run. But anyway I hope that there there will be resolution for this crisis that allow Greece recover their economic turmoil relatively fast and with relatively little damage to people of Greece and with out significant economical and/or political damage to union. I quite dislike rhetorics that currently surround topic especially from Greece's, Finland's, France's, and Germany's leaders, because all the huffing and puffing about people's need to pay their debts, evil institutions, throwing blame every direction, etc. don't help anyway in solving the crisis, they are just useless distraction that only let situation get worse. But as myself don't have any real answers or power to solve situation, I am forced to hope that those that currently have mandate from people to govern our nations will actually use their power to find solution that will work best for our short and long run interests and execute that solution so that it actually will work.

That depends on perspective, EU made it possible that Finland was able to rise quite fast from its economical turmoil, as it make sure that European markets were stable, easy to access and level of bureaucracy dropped significantly, which made fast economical growth a possibility. But of course economical disparity between EU countries also created situations that caused and still cause problems that didn't exist before EU at least in same scale. And of course there has been things of seer stupidity on the way and some on the horizon, but overall EU has produced more good than bad for the Finland at least, although now some people start to see it more a hindrance than asset.

Referendum also has lot of to do with that Greeks (as society) don't like cuts in their standard of living and their government asked of them do they want make those cuts or do they trust them in their claim that other euro countries will give them more money if they say no for the cuts. Which as seen by many (even by quite lot of euro area's political leaders) that Greece try to vote that other countries should pay their bills, which has seen as anti-freedom and anti-self-rule thing to do.